What would you ask Bell?
Update: This interview has been rescheduled for Tuesday, April 15, 2008.
Update 2: The interview has been recorded. You can listen here.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This week’s episode of Spark is all about “Access.”
On Monday, April 14 Tuesday, April 15, 2008, Nora will interview Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada’s chief of regulatory affairs. Their topics will include:
- Net neutrality
- Unlimited internet plans
- The last mile in Canada
Do you have questions about these for Mr. Bibic? Leave your (on-topic) questions in the comments below or email them to spark@cbc.ca. We’ll do our best to include as many as possible in the interview.
We’ll post the full unedited interview here on Monday Tuesday afternoon, so check back then to hear it. A shorter, edited version will then air on Spark on April 16 and 19.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I would like to know why Bell didn’t inform their customers directly about their decision to start throttling some types of internet traffic. I pay higher rates for an “ultra high speed” connection and I feel like I’ve been lied to, as apparently I’m not the one who gets to decide how I use the service. How long have they been doing this? Did they ever plan to inform their customers? I’m an Aliant customer (the Maritime TelCo, Bell is their parent company) and a few days after this story was posted on the CBC site, Aliant’s CSRs didn’t know any more about the issue than I did. They hadn’t heard anything about it from management and some had not even heard the Bell story at all. That’s completely ridiculous!
Thanks for taking listening, Spark!
April 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am
How long does Bell thing they will get away with this?
When will they live up to their agreements to provide the service we pay for?
When will they stop being the “bandwidth hogs”?
When will Bell admit they are falsely discriminating their customers?
When they lose the case and harmony and balance is brought back to our internet in Canada… what does Bell think will happen that isnt already affecting their reputation.. ?
Why is Bell digging them in a hole thinking it is no big deal ?
This interview should be to call Bell out, not listen to more of Bell’s BS, and have them try to justify anything.
They are only doing wrong, and they have no excuses.. so make sure you make a point of that in the interview.
THANK YOU !
April 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am
After all the statistics show that there is no reason why Bell can not provide the full bandwidth alloted to each subscriber, why is Bell insisting that they can not handle the traffic ?
Does Bell know they are not just affecting P2P applications but a vast scope of applications used by business and home use ?
Why isn’t Bell starting to deal with the problem by expanding their infrastucture, if it can not handle the traffic, rather than punish its subscribers ?
How does Bell account for making the service “better for the overall users” by traffic shaping, when 70-80% of users use some form of P2P ?
Why can’t Bell give us real proven statistics that they are not capable of allowing full usage of the bandwidth subscribers pay for ?
( because its not true )
……………
I hope you will also look into all discussions about these issues from dslreports and related links for more questions.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
How can Bell claim that it’s time for the third party providers that lease its lines to build their own infrastructure when the very lines that Bell “owns” were paid for largely by the Canadian taxpayers?
Way back when, we all realized that the only way to get a national Internet infrastructure in place was through public funding and cooperation with national companies who could manage it.
The costs for starting up a respectable ISP are astronomical. Bell had taxpayer help and a government enforced monopoly to have this kind of coverage. It’s time for them to be held accountable for it.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
A compelling argument can (and has) been made that the bandwidth problem isn’t due to ‘bandwidth hogs’, it’s a problem with the ISPs marketing practices. Namely they sell ‘unlimited’ internet but are completely incapable of providing unlimited access to all of those subscribers.
Manufacturers get into financial/PR difficulties when they sell more widgets than they can produce, but it is that company’s problem. Bell is making it the customer’s problem. In the manufacturing context, what Bell is essentially saying is ‘we sold you the whole widget but we don’t have enough so we’ll give you this 1/4 widget instead for the same price. Enjoy.”
My question:
“How do you respond to the assertion that your bandwidth problems are self-inflicted, namely that Bell has sold more bandwidth to its customers than it can support?”
Follow-up:
“How does Bell intend on adjusting its marketing practices to ensure that customers purchase and what customers receive are the same thing?”
April 11th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
My questions:
Who is the wholesaler? (i.e. Who sells bandwidth to Canadian telcos and cable companies?)
Besides the ‘wholesale’ cost, what other costs are associated with providing bandwidth to Canadian consumers?
Whose infrastructure costs less or is least in need of upgrade — telcos or cable companies? Why?
If the real problem is “bandwidth hogs” why not simply remove all “shaping” and usage restrictions and charge on a pure, per-usage basis for bandwidth? (Rogers went part-way there by adding a per-GB charge but has not removed throttling and shaping.)
Is it okay for CBC and other broadcasters to distribute legal content via peer-to-peer networks?
Does Bell have a conflict of interest in this discussion because of its relationship with CTV?
Have fun!
Sandy
April 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
For reference, the “unlimited” plan I am referring to below is for Bell’s (former) “unlimited” cellular data plan. Details of my experience with Bell here: https://www.socialtext.net/lukec/index.cgi?bell_unlimited
I would ask Mr. Bell:
For an “unlimited” plan, what would be a reasonable per-day bandwith usage for someone in 2008? How does it differ for a so-called ‘Net-gen’ or ‘Gen-Y-er’?
While my colleagues in America have $20/month true unlimited accounts, the best plan Bell can offer me is $100 for 250MB/day (That’s a whole 8.3 Megabytes per day!) How can I innovate and create new applications and help create demand for Bell’s internet services with these conditions?
A Bell Manager told me that when Bell was rolling out the Unlimited data plan, he protested that consumer expectations in 2008 were simply out of line with how this plan would be marketed and enforced. He also said that the network capacity in the West simply couldn’t handle the effects of such a plan. Why did Bell ignore such voices?
Is this “unlimited” fiasco simply a really poor business decision by Bell?
BitTorrent is becoming a common protocol (just like HTTP) that many applications use to efficiently download files (see Miro). If a customer has left such an application running while using a Bell service, is complete termination of the account a good business move?
What is Bell’s vision of the future for cheap, ubiquitous wireless internet? What scale of timeline do they envision?
April 11th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
My five questions to Bell would be:
1. Given the inherent conflict of interest, why should Bell not be delaminated at the regulatory level and prohibited from providing both internet access and content services?
2. The builders of the web are concerned that the internet principle known as the ‘freedom to innovate’ is in danger of being lost to internet gatekeepers. Has Bell considered the long term damage to Canada’s innovation economy by not adapting a non-interference policy and effectively choosing which new technologies become successful on the internet?
3. Many have charged that Bell’s excessive traffic arguments, if demonstrable, could simply be solved by either provisioning network capacity in relation to real use or by implementing capped or metered billing. Why does bell think that interfering in internet access and content competition is a better solution than either or both of these options?
4. SBC’s CEO has used the “My Pipes” argument to argue that content providers should have to pay his ISP for the use of his network. Despite the fact that Content providers pay for their internet access just as a residential subscriber does, does Bell believe that we should have multiple points of billing for content providers on the internet, and that content providers should have contracts with every ISP in the world?
Followup: Because the Internet is a two-way medium, are Bell subscribers ever content providers and should they have to negotiate agreements with foreign ISPs when they want to use, for example, a live video chat with a friend on another ISP?
5. Why does Bell believe it can favour its own content distribution technology (VoD, satellite, etc) over others like Joost, Vuze or Bittorrent — why should the CRTC not apply undue preference legislation and sanction Bell under the Telecommunications Act?
April 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
+1 for question #3 from Kevin McArthur
You should also ask about the current conflict between the BBC and ISPs over who should pay for iPlayer bandwidth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7336940.stm
April 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
What I would like Bell to answer is how they feel that statistical usage of the internet from 2005 to 2006 is somehow applicable today?
All Bibic’s numbers quoted to date came from a June 2006 presentation by network management company Sandvine Inc. However in a report issued by Ellacoya(the company who’s technology Bell is using to shape traffic)in June 2007 that at that point web traffic had overcome p2p as the highest bandwidth user.
How can Bell use statistical analysis that is years old, in application to modern internet usage, when the internet as a technology is constantly growing and changing.
Furthermore it should be noted that according to the Ellacoya study that YouTube alone is 10% of all internet traffic. In fact the report states:
“After more than four years during which peer-to-peer (P2P) applications have overwhelmingly consumed
the largest percentage of bandwidth on the network, HTTP (Web) traffic has overtaken P2P and continues
to grow. Presently, as a result of streaming audio and video in Web downloads, HTTP is approximately
46% of all traffic on the network. P2P continues as a strong second place at 37% of total traffic.
Newsgroups (9%), non-HTTP video streaming (3%), gaming (2%) and VoIP (1%) are the next widely used
applications.
Breaking down application types within HTTP, the data reveals that traditional Web page downloads (i.e.
text and images) represent 45% of all Web traffic. Streaming video represents 36% and streaming audio
5% of all HTTP traffic. YouTube alone comprises approximately 20% of all HTTP traffic, or nearly 10% of
all traffic on the Internet.
“The popularity of browser-based video such as YouTube is having a significant impact not only on
overall bandwidth consumption but also on the distribution of application traffic on the network,” said Fred
Sammartino, vice president of marketing and product management at Ellacoya. “The way people use the
Internet is changing rapidly – from browsing to real-time streaming. We expect to see new applications
over the next year that will accelerate this trend.””
I would like to know why Bell is providing a technology service on ancient data, rather then a forward looking service based on innovation.
The full Report can be found at:»www.ellacoya.com/news/pdf/2007/N···lert.pdf
I would also like to know why Bell would feel itself above the measures laid out by the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel (»www.telecomreview.ca/epic/site/t···/en/Home)
especially in regards to the abuse of dominance.
I would also like to know why Bell feels itself above the recent CRTC ruling that ” DSL wholesale and Cable Modem wholesale will continue (PDF) until such time as a meaningful competitive source of supply of wholesale facilities develops. Aside from preserving the status-quo, the CRTC has also determined that unaggregated ADSL access (DSL wholesale for competitors who self-supply their facilities into telephone company central offices) is an essential service given the lack of unbundling for sub-loops. The CRTC ordered phone companies to re-price unaggregated DSL wholesale at forward-looking costs plus a mark-up of no more than 15%, opening the door for a significant reduction in the rates ISPs pay to the telephone companies for access to DSL wholesale.”
See »www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/NEWS/RELEASES···0303.htm for more.
I would also like to know whether or not Bell has been planning this since the last time they tried to kill the competition in 1998 ?
See http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1998/08/14491
April 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I would like to know why we’re constantly being referred to as “bandwidth hogs” when we’re paying for said bandwidth. My cap is 200GB/m I should able to choose when to use it.
It’s like buying a car and having the dealer tell you that you can only go 30kmph on the 401 at times of their choosing.
Secondly, why is it that I never noticed congestion or slow-downs prior to this? This all seems anti-competitive to me.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Mr. Bibic continually asserts in the press that 5% of users are “hogging” most of the bandwidth (”up to 50%”), ruining the internet experience for the rest of us “during peak times”.
Is Mr. Bibic intentially using old, out-of-date data from Sandvine published in June 2006 to support Bell’s current actions in 2008? The Sandvine figures show that 5% of users use approximately 50% of the bandwidth, primarily with P2P applications. However, Ellacoya has published a much more recent study in 2007 showing that VOIP, video gaming, and streaming video are using up more bandwidth then previously and P2P applications are ACTUALLY USING LESS.
My question: why is Mr. Bibic using *older* data to support Bell’s throttling of P2P applications when more current data shows that P2P applications are now using less bandwidth and other types of traffic are using more? It seems like Bell is selectively using the studies that support their position, even if they are now irrelevant.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
It is now known that even as wholesale throttling was being deployed, Bell was still denying any such thing was planned. Why isn’t Bell dealing straight with us?
Is it and should it be a conflict of interests for the majority shareholder of BCE to engineer network policies that benefit their other holdings to the detriment of the rest of the market? Is it ethical to exploit control of the network to influence culture and commerce?
April 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I have another question. In an interview with the Montreal Gazette published April 11th, 2008, Mr. Bibic states:
“95 per cent of users don’t even use P2P and I suspect most don’t even know what P2P is. So the hostages are the 95 per cent of users whose service gets deteriorated.”
Then further in the interview he states:
“We’re not targeting particular people or particular content, we’re directing these measures at a particular type of traffic. It’s not slowing down peer-to-peer for everyone.”
My question: Why are you targeting a particular type of traffic (i.e. P2P applications), when you claim that 5% of users use 50% of bandwidth? Shouldn’t you be targeting the users that are using the bandwidth, no matter what they use it for? By targeting P2P as a technology, you slow down every single user that uses that P2P technology, no matter if they are one of the 5% “hogs” or not. Hospitals use P2P to transmit patient data, the CBC uses P2P to distribute legal media content, the popular video game World of Warcraft usese P2P to supply its paying customers with software updates. There are many, many examples of legitimate uses of P2P technology. Why on earth would Bell target and throttle a particular technology or “type of traffic”, when they claim the problem is in fact that certain users use much more bandwith than other users? Your claim isn’t that certain technologies use more bandwidth than other technologies. Why target the technology then?
Supplementary question: I take exception to Mr. Bibic’s claim that “95% of users don’t even use P2P”. That is not what the (outdated and irrelevant) Sandvine number show. They show that 5% of users use approximately 50% of bandwidth amongst various types of traffic, predominantly P2P (again, these number are outdated and irrelevant now). Just because the study shows 5% of users are the “hogs” doesn’t mean the other 95% do not use the same technology as the “hogs” but to a lesser extent. Mr. Bibic, care to retract your statement or re-read the study you are touting?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Mr. Bibic:
I am accessing http://www.bell.ca today and reading your marketing material that you use to sell your Bell-Sympatico DSL services.
On the page marketing ‘Total Internet Essential’ service, Bell claims this service is:
“Consistently fast service that’s never shared”
On the Internet services landing page of http://www.bell.ca it states:
“Consistent Speed: Choice of consistent super-fast access. No frustrating slow downs, even during peak hours.”
Mr. Bibic, given the above claims Bell is still today making to its existing customers and potential customers regarding the speed and consistency of the connection, as well as the claim that the connection is *not* shared with anyone, how on earth can you be today stating in the media 1) certain types of traffic are being trottled during peak hours and 2) this is being done because the Bell network is “congested”? Congested by whom, if you’ve sold me an internet connection that I do not share with any of your other customers?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
* On the Bell Nexxia site Bell mentions that you use 128bit encryption for the wholesalers connection with you, does it not defeat the purpose if your throttling mucks around with the data beforehand?
* Does it not also suggest you are willingly and knowingly toying around with private and sensitive data that is not meant for you?
* Bell went against there promise of “No limit on data transfer so that your customers can surf and download 24×7″ … this means Bell can’t deliver what it sells, hence the need for reducing what ISP Partners are paying for access. When will GAS prices be reduced?
>>http://www.bcenexxia.com/wholesale/products/dslgate.htm
* If traffic shaping is introduced to relieve congestion, then when will they be removed and how are the metrics going to be communicated with the wholesalers? (Relieve sounds like a temporary solution, so this traffic shaping should have an end date/ or objective)
* Why weren’t the ISP partners notified with a months notice at the minimum?
* When will ADSL2 be available to the ISP Partners?
* What reason did Jason Laszlo the Bell PR Spokesman have for calling the media a bunch of “Lemmings”, and for insulting every DSL subscriber with his moniker “Thottlicious”?
>>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20247550-Jason-Laszlo-Bell-spokesmans-real-thoughts-on-this-issue
* How can TekSavvy afford to charge overages of $0.25/GB or $10/100GB per month, and Bells rates are exorbitantly high?
* Is Bell co-ordinating strategies with Rogers, resulting in similar caps, prices, overages, and throttling activities?
* Sympatico customers are being throttled and capped, making it an unfair situation, when will Bell stop throttling them or stop capping them? (It defeats the purpose to do both as it is heavy handed)
* Why introduce 16Mb/s fast speeds when your network clearly can’t handle 5Mb/s customers where majority still can’t barely even get 3Mb/s?
* The wholesalers such as TekSavvy are mentioned as resellers, but in essence are you not there VENDOR for backhauling data? TekSavvy does not buy IP Transit (ie. Bandwidth) from Nexxia, and only uses Bell for the last mile … a service which is government mandated as an essential service and paid for at a rate of $21 per TekSavvy user.
* What makes them resellers in your mind, as they do not sell a rebranded Bell transit?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
In light of the fact that the technology used to “shape” and “Throttle” the data bewteen an ISP and the subscriber, I would like to know the following:
Under what law is Bell allowed to inspect and determine, based on content vice adress, what to do with it?
This is akin to have the Post office opening mail of all customers, and determining the level of service they will provide based upon what they read. My understanding is that uless consent is given, or under court order, that telecommunication data is private. As a user not having a contract with Bell, I certainly did not aggree to my private communication being tapped.
As a follow up, I would like Bell to explain what happens to the private data that has been mined by the above technology, Is it retained, sold, or in any way used for commercial purpose?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I’ve got a couple of questions for Bell:
1) Why does Bell sell the wholesalers 5Mb/s (megabit per second) service if they are unable to provide it? (If the backbone is at capacity and they have to throttle, why are they selling access to something at capacity)
2) Why are the ISPs that do invest in some of their own infrastructure throttled? (For example TekSavvy leases Bell’s wires, DSLAMs, and *regional* fibre. But TekSavvy connects their customers to the internet using their own hardware and bandwidth, from companies other than Bell. They just pay Bell to get from their hardware to the customer’s home; it is not simply a white-label service.)
April 11th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
How does Bell respond to the allegation that they’re throttling their wholesale customers in order to remove the incentive for their own subscribers to switch to services that aren’t throttled?
April 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Mr. Bibic do you have an opinion as to why the Government and others persist in pretending that Net neutrality,unlimited internet plans as well as load or traffic shaping and other questionable actions including widespread censorship by government and Corporations,of information on the internet,are permitted, thereby violating principles of free and open speech, in a free and open society,are not considered matters requiring regulatory vigilance?
This shameful behavior orchestrated to deny Canadians the right to be fully informed and aware of issues of great importance ensuring intelligent input between citizens and their elected government in the conduct of Canadian and international affairs.
Such conduct ensures government and corporate control of Canadian affairs of state unfettered by the influence of the citizenry.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
(1) Why does Bell advertise “Consistently fast dedicated internet access that’s never shared”? And then throttle with the claim that 5% of users are hurting everybody even the independent ISP’s?
(2) When will we see the numbers to back up your claims?
April 11th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
How much money has been spent on DPI technologies?
How much money would it have cost to expand the network rather than limit the usage of the existing network?
Going forward will DPI (throttling) technology be removed once the ailing Bell network is able to handle high bandwidth users?
Does it make sense to limit technologies used by your customers even though history has shown that these same “bandwidth hogs” may actually be paving the way for what will eventually become something mainstream.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Though we know it’s bullshit, ask them to make proof of this “net congestion” they keep ranting about public.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I run a small ISP. I don’t directly connect to Bell for last mile, I resell access provided by Teksavvy, so I’m as effected by Bell’s changes to the basics of last mile networking as anyone. I’ve read some comments in other forums by Mr. Bibic that I take issue with, as a 12 year veteran of dealing with Bell at an ISP level.
Like, for instance, the point that ISP’s are free to lease lines from Bell and put in their own DSLams.
Of course we can – but only since a CRTC decision in 2000 *against* Bells wishes.
Why don’t we? What’s Bell’s price per leased line? What are the additional charges for leased lines – installation, repair, maintenance, how much will it cost to roll a truck for a CPE repair? How much is the rack space, per CO, for colocating a DSLAM? How many customers can be supported on one DSLAM. What is the cost of a DSLAM? More to the point, what’s the cost per port of a DSLAM? Is it more or less then the $21 per customer some ISPs already pay Bell (not including the Interface and Gig-e charges)? Do ISP’s have access to remotes for locating DSLAMs, or just CO’s? What percentage of Sympatico users are currently served from Remotes as compared to CO’s?
I already know the answers to many of these questions – that’s why I buy DSL connectivity from TSI. I’d be interested in Mr. Bibic’s answers. It’s handy that he can just glibly state that we are allowed by the CRTC to build out our own net. But honestly, if it were affordable and cost effective, why wouldn’t we?
April 11th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
When did Bell’s shift in Customer Service policy take place? For nearly eight years, we had absolutely no issue with either our internet service or the customer service people we interacted with. Since October 2007, speaking to Sympatico CSRs has become a nightmare. Any service issues are always an issue on my end, even when there’s no reason to assume so. I have had CSRs lie to me about the situation, and I’ve never even been offered an apology for outages.
Do you think this is an appropriate way to treat loyal customers?
April 11th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Legitimate bandwidth-intensive applications are already in their infancy and will be commonplace in the very near future. Applications like Vimeo, Ustream, and the announced forthcoming Youtube HD allow/will allow HD user content to be continually stream over BCE’s network. Joost, Miro, and Zattoo legitimately deliver television via the internet using the same P2P technology that BCE currently throttles while Movieflix and Apple TV, once they finetune their operations, will have the ability to provide streamed full length movies to our computers. For every application I mention above, I’m sure there are six I haven’t heard about or are in development. Bottom line is that normal everyday users enjoying legitimate and soon-to-be routine applications on the internet will vastly eclipse the broadband usage of P2P. Bell has had over seven years to exhibit a little foresight and prepare their network for bittorrent, and will now require massive upgrades if they wish to facilitate these new and upcoming applications. Is BCE willing to invest in upgrading its network to withstand such applications, which will then negate the need for traffic throttling or shaping (or the ability to do it legally without packet inspection), or is it planning to sit on the sidelines and let the rest of the Canada and the world enjoy the internet at its full potential?
It is also interesting that fellow IP Comcast in the US admitted to shaping P2P traffic and followed up this January by announcing the launch of their Wideband service, which promises four-minute HD movie downloads by splitting and originating the download stream from four separate locations, similar to P2P technology. Is BCE “making room” for similar propietory application or service by shaping other traffic? Obviously, should a similar bandwidth-intensive service be announced within the next year, the answer will be crystal clear.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Mr. Bibic,
1) In the letter Bell sent out to its wholesale customers explaining the throttling issue, there was a sentence in it that reads, “We understand the difficulty this action has caused for you and your customers who are P2P users, but the majority of your end users will experience an increased level of satisfaction.” Has this been true for the wholesalers’ customers? I understand that Bell Sympatico is also being throttled. Has it been true for Sympatico users as well?
2) Why does Bell continue to claim that wholesale ISPs are selling a white-label product to customers? Wholesale ISPs such as Teksavvy are not reselling Sympatico service under a different name. The only things in common between Bell and wholesalers is the copper wiring under the city streets that they both occupy. The wholesalers are paying Bell for access to these wires so they can transmit their own data. They are not paying for a slice of the Sympatico pie.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
On a popular Canadian consumer website forum, (redflagdeals.com) Bell is voted as the #1 company to avoid at all cost. It seems as though everybody has a story about the horrible service and support that Bell provides and monthly billing issues. Does Bell blatantly practice unethical business because they know that they own half the internet? (independent isp do not count since Bell pushes them out of the picture by purposely throttling their speeds) I have had my fair share of problems with sympatico, the worst of which was when I was billed money for going over my bandwidth usage for two months which I was not at home (and there was 0 usage of the internet). The problem was very difficult to resolve. Needless to say Bell is #1 on my list of companies to avoid at all cost.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Of the large telcos in Canada, not one provides or has promised network neutrality to their clients. Not even to offer unthrottled internet as a extra paid feature. Why do you think that the competition of a few large telcos justifies your request for the CRTC to stop forcing you to allow smaller internet providers to resell your internet access?
April 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
This is a very important issue. I recently found out about it from the Campaign for Democratic Media’s “StopTheThrottler” campaign – see here: http://stopthethrottler.ca
It’s extremely important we have groups like CDM rallying the public around this issue. Please make sure to cover the folks like CDM (Steve Anderson) and Michael Geist who are fighting to keep the Internet open.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Hello. I don’t really want to hear Bell’s answer to any of these questions, because it will be crap. But I would like your show to investigate this in the public interest. If Bell/Rogers no longer deserve the last mile access to our properties, then how to we take over that most crucial part of the network.
Who owns/leases the poles and conduit that comprise the last mile? Is telcos, hydro utilities, cable companies, or municipalities? How is that regulated? What hoops would a community organization have to jump through to run it’s own data lines (coper, cable, or fibre) on those poles, put up new poles, run under ground cabling to build a truly public, neutral, and not-for-profit network?
Has the public’s use of these rights of way truly been given up to corporate interests or can we get access to them too?
P.S. Please don’t say the answer is wireless. In addition to spectrum competition and how the government doles out access to it, I’m not really interested in radiating my family with more powerful transmitters and antennas within and pointing at my house. WiMax may sound neat but Bell/Rogers have already scooped that up for 130-some municipalities.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Ellacoya Networks reported, in June of 2007, that HTTP (Web) traffic has overtaken peer-to-peer (P2P) applications in bandwidth consumption.
Based on usage data from about a million North American broadband subscribers, the study showed that streaming video and audio downloads have spiked HTTP bandwidth usage to 46 percent of all traffic on the network.
At the time it was published, P2P applications accounted for 37 percent of the total traffic.
How can bell now tell us that P2P applications have skyrocketed up to 95% of all bandwidth, in less than a year?
For anyone who wants the ellecoya report here’s the link. http://www.ellacoya.com/news/pdf/2007/NXTcommEllacoyaMediaAlert.pdf
April 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Currently people are protesting censorship, bandwidth and content throttling in China (amongst other issues), with the misplaced belief that in the “West” this doesn’t take place. When clearly this IS taking and propagated by the useless and invalid CRTC.
Did Mr Bell and his fellow telco cronies think they could get away with it?
Why are the telcos the pawns of the recording and movie studios who are the proponents of this ill-conceived plan to introduce P2P throttling and bandwidth constraints? Don’t they have any backbone to stand-up for Net Neutrality? Not everything copied/P2P’d on the Net is illegal!
Why is it so difficult to see that Net Neturality will in the long run provide better service and profit?
Any form of censorship is the Dark Side!
April 11th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
It has become abundantly clear that legitimate high-bandwidth applications are here to stay, whether Bell (or any other ISP, for that matter) likes it or not.
In countries like Japan and Korea, 100 or 150 mbit services are widely rolled out. In Canada, one is lucky to be able to receive and afford a service providing a tenth of that bandwidth, throttled and capped.
What has held Bell back from investing in its infrastructure, so as to legitimately offer the full, unfettered bandwidth its clients are willing to pay for?
One buys x mbits of bandwidth. One expects to have that full bandwidth available at any time, on any given protocol. If the provider cannot fully supply the service it offers, how on earth could it be the customer’s fault?
April 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
The only one question I’d like to ask the Bell representative is :
Since you candidly lie to your customer about the speed of your items, the frequent outages and the overall poor service, do you have any reason for me not to switch to another ISP?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Why do you allow your tech support to do the following:
A) trick me the customer into a ending my contract which as is seen now has cost you 14K+ a year in other customers.
B) HAve tech support threaten me for using a completely legal application
(utorrent) regardless of the content i was getting?
C) why was i just recently billed for an early termination bonus when i have been with teksavvy now for 2 pay periods?(100$)
C-part2) Why was the month previous allowed ot be billed ot me when it was your tech support that unwittingly broke my contract and my remedy is to either SUE you or leave the contract without penalty you bill me (30$)
D) Why was i lied to every day for three weeks that i had in fact had my contract revoked and was put from a unlimited account to a 60GB capped account when the day before the change i had 84GB.
E) during said legal threat , i was grabbing legal ebooks i video /audio taped this would you waive your privacy to allow me to publically out this video to allow people to here my storey of how you treated a faithful customer and turned me into a stressed out wreck for a month.
F) As teksavvy made me the offer that every person i sign up i gte 1$/month and they are offered via me ot get either a 200GB /unlimited plan at 5 megabit and you go around me and traffic shape them, what rememdy will you provide should anyone i signed up sue me for fraud?
G) What justification can there be for 95% of the speed reduction.
example:
i am on a toll highway i pay to get on. Once on it i am told i cna only drive on it at 3 miles an hour ( 5% of 60mph = 3mph)
H) Why not get into talks with SAC and Warner about a fee for legal p2p, ask for 1$ from each fee to expand network for p2p.
SHAPE the hell out of the rest.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Although this will be an episode not to be missed, it’s a shame that the format is an interview instead of a debate. Having someone like Michael Geist go head-to-head with Mr. Bibic would be extremely informative as well as entertaining. I suspect that if you attempted to arrange something like this, Mr. Bibic would have declined your invitation.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
How does Bell explain the results of this poll:
http://tinyurl.com/6qma7p
April 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Do you feel that to some extent increased government oversight could provide a role in solving ISP problems? For example incentive for companies to implement new technology and solve bandwidth problems while keeping the involved companies competitive and profitable?
In China for example ipv6 has been rolled out across the country in time for the Olympic games due to government regulation. A similar system in the United States is due to be finished this year for government agencies and contractors. The FCC/US Congress has also so far enforced a network neutrality policy in part due to widespread outrage in the technology community. Korea’s government have taken an active role in ensuring that broadband connections there do not stagnate as they’ve done in North America.
Some areas where the government could help in Canada: Analog TV spectrum auctions, subsidized fiber to last mile (for Bell), subsidized DOCSIS 3.0 adoption (for cable ISPs), ensured net neutrality, etc.
A balanced constraints and incentive program seem to me like it would create jobs, help the IT industry, make ISPs more profitable, level the playing field between ISPs, and keep customers happy.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
With all the talk about the 5% hogs, what is being done about bring usable Internet connections (not dialup or wireless) to the +5% of users in rual areas who are not considered profitable enough to bother bringing high speed to?
I have friends that if they lived 1 mile to the east or west they would be able to get high speed, but since there is only 2 houses in the middle nothing can be done.
Shouldn’t the last mile be offered everywhere before its upgraded?
Since the second mile runs on fibers, does the second mile need building or does the providers need to invest in upgrading their hardware to allow more traffic on the same fibers? (faster lasers, faster routers)
April 11th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
So I guess your reason, Mr. Bibic, for implementing your traffic shaping strategy, is that P2P traffic is crippling your network… Alright, I’ll play along with that. So then if that’s the case, why would you want to impede the user experience of your internet service when you know almost all of your customers use some form of P2P application. After all, it IS the reason you’re on this show. You are about to implement a very unpopular policy on your network that will have a rippling effect across all internet users, and third party providers in this country. Instead of policing your customers’ internet by scapegoating P2P, Why not think of a way to make P2P protocols more efficient so that they don’t cripple your network as you claim? It would seem like an obvious choice that putting more money into research for a more efficient protocol than spending money on traffic shaping technology is the better way to go, not only for Bell, but for it’s Customers as well.
By the way, if you’re looking for a place to start on that, you might want to ask Verizon and how they’re coming along with ‘P4P’ …more info here http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080314-verizon-embraces-p4p-a-more-efficient-peer-to-peer-tech.html
April 11th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I have read that the average broadband download speed in Japan is 61 Mbps and 45 Mbps in South Korea. Why is Bell Canada not providing that kind of service to Canadians? There are some locations in the greater Toronto area that cannot even get DSL service or can only get low speed DSL. Why isn’t Bell investing in their network so that all Canadians can take advantage of the new Internet services being developed?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I’m wondering how many people realize that when downloading a file via say http or ftp only one connection is opened. To open download the same file from a common p2p application opens alot connections (some clients default to 30 or 60 and a number of users edit this number to range in the hundreds). As well as using your uploading in most cases to share with others. This does cause an affect to networks to varying degrees depending on who’s report you want to believe. IF like many Isp’s and others are saying is true and the majority of our bandwidth is being used by a small percentage of users why are we all paying for what only a small percentage require. While personally not a fan of p2p I do not wish to see its growth stifled as i think its gives many people the ability to share things on a mass appeal without requiring the cost of massive servers and connections. I don’t want to pay for this myself however and feel that if someone wants a p2p account thats not throttled they can pay extra for the increased demands there specific needs require. Just like a cell phone plan charges you more and more for each feature the Isp’s could very well do the same.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Bell Canada is releasing a product shortly that will go by the name of IPTV. It essentially will deliver video directly to a set-up box on request.
This is likely going to be a much cleaner solution to BitTorrent downloading, but it will also come at a cost.
My question is simply this, isn’t Bell removing competitive products off of its networks so that its IPTV service can be highlighted? Torrent traffic like CBCs released program are being interrupted so that Bell can offer a solution directly to homes over IP.
I’m fine with Bell doing this to its own IP network. I’m not okay with Bell doing this to other ISPs that partially use Bell’s infrastructure. Bell is specifically mandated to provide basic layer infrastructure, they are breaking their mandated agreement by interfering with IP traffic.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
It’s interesting that Bell would work so hard to gain customers by promising a certain level of service, but then not appear to be willing to update their network to handle the business that they successfully landed. How is this different from a “Bait and Switch” scam operation?
April 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Instead of throttling, downgrading service for MANY Canadians and so called users of “high speed”, as well as imposing 90gb caps on services that are many times higher than useful with those speeds, why not upgrade the ability move more information?
I mean really, does bell have a superiority complex where they are better than their customers? Without us, there would be no “you”.
Jerks…
April 12th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Over the last two I’ve *purchased* 1/3 of my software through Steam, a p2p service. Why are you hindering me from getting my applications as fast as I can from a peer only a couple hops away on the internet, possibly a neighbour less than a kilometre away? My phone company doesn’t care what I discuss and my car company doesn’t care which grocery I drive to. So what president do you have to interfere with where I purchase my software??
April 12th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Bell’s packet shaping might be bad, but I have had a hell of a time using their internet service at home (I’m so glad my school doesn’t use it). Not only is traffic throttled but my MODEM blocks ports. That’s right it’s a DHCP gateway with its own interface and there’s no way to disable that. This was the modem I fought hard to get after my first modem was USB precluding any chance of networking.
What’s also dumb is how you originally shipped Sympatico with a rebraded Internet Explorer. Ooo its the same thing except it says “provided by Sympatico” on top. I don’t care I use Firefox anyway. After that you moved on to bundling that MSN browser with Sympatico and started that whole music partnership. That music service is stupid as well: 1) It costs money so it better be decent 2) It’s not decent, its lossy 3) It has DRM so no way am I touching it.
Oh and Bell you’re part of that cleanfeed Canada project aren’t you. So you think you should be allowed to watch child pornography? I don’t think so, no one should be allowed to… if you really want to stop it, hunt down the evil perpetrators who are violating children… don’t censor the interwebs.
It also sucks how your mobility mailbox has the most annoying voice and you can’t get your name to show up on caller ID the normal way. Remember that guy who had to pay $85,000 for one month of using your phone as a normal modem? Did it really cost you that much to send him the data? Do you realize how absurd charging per kilobyte really is? I suppose that’s a problem with all large cell phone carriers in Canada though. Same with locked out phones with the carrier label on them. Those make me sick. Everyone should get a phone that can be used with any network… that’s how phones were supposed to be. It costs more but not having to buy a contract saves them all of it back.
There are probably many more things about Bell that infuriate me and I just forgot what they were. I wouldn’t be surprised if every problem I’ve ever had in life related back to Bell in some way. When I pay for my own Internet, I will make sure it will NOT be coming from you.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I have one question and one question only:
Where is the substantiated proof that the Bell backhaul network is congested? I have yet to see any factual evidence from Bell that this in fact is true. Show us the proof!
April 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Bell Canada has already lost me as an Internet customer over their uneven, costly and poorly supported DSL service. (Canada seems to be the rare place on earth where DSL costs keep increasing.) Even costs approved by the CRTC and levied on Bell customers for improved rural internet service for several years were not used by the company for this purpose. What makes them believe they can further abuse their monopoly position by throttling other ISPs and why should government regulation not be enacted to prevent this unfair practice.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Bell has been offering the same 3/5Mbps service for many years now. Yet the cost of the core routing infrastructure has decreased dramatically in this same period; per “color” (lambda) en each fiber, they got at first 1Gbps, the 10Gbps, a now 40Gbps, with an essentially constant price per port. Meaning the price per transported bit went down 40 times, yet the prices they charge for internet subscriptions and to competitors for DSL dry loops stayed constant (actuall it went upwards).
This means that all this discussion about bandwidth constrains in the core and core network costs is just plain hypocrisy.
People started flying out of Bell Sympatico when they started their throttling policies. Now Bell is levelling down the market, forcing all other dsl providers throttle, whether they want it or not.
Bell is crying loud for the CRTC regulator to step in on behalf of all of us Bell cautive customers.
Two years ago I migrated my phone to VoIP and started paying $4 dollars per month for the service. Then I migrated my DSL to a dry loop provider, after Sympatico’s ridiculously long times to pick up my calls when things went wrong (later I learned that my support calls were picked up in India) and expensive service and then throttling. I’m paying one third the amount with my new provider and I got the promise of no throttling.
I thought I was safe from Bell, but these guys are a nightmare.
CRTC please save us.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Re: Net neutrality
Are the currently throttled applications used to download large video files which pose a threat to satellite television such as Bell Expressvu?
April 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Having spent a lifetime in Telcomm/IT industry, I have some thoughts on what ails the industry. First and foremost, profit. Income, income, income is to telcos what location is to real estate. Income is telcos crack cocaine, as it is with most other industries (doh – Banking?). In the ’70s I spent some time at GM Canada installing a telex front end order system. The time spent there gave me a rather deep understanding that GM is about – its making money (really?). Cars and trucks were a sideline. Likewise with the Beav/Jolly Rogers. Like crack addicts they want steady income. Anything else is irrelevant. Plant extension, improved service, customer relations, new technologies, innovation, maintenance take a back seat UNLESS they can be shown to improve the bottom line. Accept this and one gets a feel for a solution. IANASE (social economist), but i suspect part of the solution involves changing the business model of ‘essential’ service industries like telecomms.
I, along with most Canadians, invest our resources in for profit industry, and expect them to give us the highest returns possible, thus endorsing these industries and the PR/Marketing hype. We can’t have it both ways.
End of rant. No questions.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
It doesn’t matter what they do or try to change at this point; look at China.
The people have had a taste of what a truley free, and open source of communication can bring. It is a great unifying tool for all of mankind, and it deserves to remain the right of every person on this earth to “freely” communicate with one another unrestricted and uncensored.
Because the concept of the internet extends beyond a mere business model, government should enforce our freedom and rights to privacy when accessing it within our country.
The pace of technology is already exceeding corporations intent everyday, and the internet will eventually become self-substantiated by this movement of selfless community progress. Wireliess technologies and Peer to Peer, combined with OpenID already represent the foundation for the evolution of a web without pipes; connected by people.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Now that P2P traffic has been throttled on Bell’s network, is the next step selling special P2P accounts at a premium to those users who rely on its use ?
Once most P2P users upgrade to encrypted communication for their file exchanges, how will Bell be able to throttle it ? It is almost impossible according to most experts.
Since it is probable users will find ways to continue to share files online, either by going through encryption or by using some other method, isn’t it a false solution to revert to throttling of connections ?
Isn’t it a real fianancial risk for Bell to choose throttling as a solution to its network congestion problems while it’s clear users will find ways to circumvent it and that demand for bandwith will continue to increase ? Instead of reducing what its customers are receiving as a service wouldn’t it be a better solution to actually increase the capacity of its networks, which it will have to do anyways sooner or later ?
April 12th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The internet has grown over the last 8 years and usage has moved from e-mail, instant messages and static web pages to streaming video, interactive web pages and voice and video conferencing. With more people having access to broadband with more powerful home computers, this trend is only going to grow. Media companies are putting more content online everyday. High Definition content will be the next big thing.
What plan does Bell have to increase its internal bandwidth capacity to be able to handle this future use. Traffic shaping can only be a short-term solution to this problem. Sooner rather than later, more people will be using these high-bandwidth applications. This expansion is key to having a neutral network. Ensuring there is enough to go around. In England there is debate between the BBC and the ISPs over who should pay for the extra usage since the launch of iplayer.
The “last mile” has two ways into our houses, phone and cable. These are both practical monopolies. What assurances do we have that this latest policy of Bell is not an abuse of this power?
April 12th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I like this … feed Mr Bibic the questions so he can invent spin!
April 12th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I’d like to see how Bibic responds to this one:
If the Bell network is congested as they claim, and measures (DPI) are needed to control the speed of various applications, why is Bell trying to sell 7M, 10M and 16M ADSL2+ service when it clearly doesn’t have enough capacity for its 5M ADSL customers?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Bell (and others) sought and obtained (in 2006) a Supreme Court ruling that they are “blind” as to the content of the data they transport and therefore cannot be sued for any injury resulting from that transport.
Now, Bell is “throttling” data based on their “inspection” of it, claiming justification for its actions as being (in part) “illegal downloads”.
Has Bell not then perjured itself in front of the Supreme Court and left itself wide open for Hollywood and the record companies to petition for a reversal of that ruling so they can sue the pants off Bell (and everyone else in the chain)?
Or are we going to go back to the ‘good old days’ of arguing how much penetration is required before its ‘really’ rape?…..
April 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Be sure to ask Mr. Bibic when he talks about slowing peer-to-peer and not stoping it altogether, “what is the percentage reduction in speed?”.
“Slowing down” sounds like a reduction of 20-30% in speed. However, the “slowdown” is approximately 95%.
Also, please ask how a “peak period” can be 1/3 of the time.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
There have been numerous reports of VoIP (Voice over IP) FTP and VPN connections being throttled as well.
Why would bell throttle VoIP? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that its an alternate telephone service where Bell doesn’t get a dime.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I would like to know if Bell itself even knows the implications of what is it doing with this throttling and limiting of information; where is the quantitative data about it’s network policies and the effects on them on the users of it’s networks?
Is this truly tragedy on the digital commons or simply Bell’s (and rogers) indiscriminate use of power given to them by it’s own consumers? I favour the latter, since we’re all paying for shares of the network(60gb/month 5mbit/s), but only allowed to use our purchased share for Bell and Rogers approved use? where is the freedom and neutrality in that! Soon Bell will be disconnecting peoples phones because they don’t like how they’re talking so much with “shady” people!
I’ve already left bell and rogers, seek out alternative providers and pressure the crtc todo something!
April 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Mr. Bibic, will you go on record and state that Bell has no intention of launching revenue generating services with the bandwidth made available through throttling? That is, will you guarantee that Bell has no intention of launching IPTV service or VoIP service in any shape or form. And will you go on record to say that Bell has no intention of launching tiered internet service over DSL lines where there are tiers that are not shaped?
And finally Mr. Bibic, do you deny that many of the 3rd party ISPs offering DSL service are covered under the CRTC mandated Gateway Access Services (also known as GAS) which is *not* an internet service, but a PPPoE service to connect customer networks to ISP run data centers through transparent tunnels?
If you do deny this, can you point to the contracts you have with these 3rd party ISPs? If you do not deny GAS, does throttling 3rd party ISPs at a IP level not violate GAS.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Bell Canada has lost me as a customer over their uneven, costly and poorly supported service. I have cancelled all my services with Bell (cellphone,internet, landline and sat-tv). I may be only be one customer, however I will reward good service with my business. Bell obviously does not have a clue what that is. I’m sure many customers feel this way. It has become clear that Bell values its profits more that its customers. Ask Mirko Bibic if he cares that customer are unhappy with Bell Sympaticos plan to throttle bandwidth? And that many will cancel all their services with Bell? When will Bell listen to their customers? Bell advertises “Always Fast??”.. The truth is : “Always Fast if all you do is surf the net and send email..Extremely Slow if you use our service for VoIP, VPN, FTP or downloading CBC shows or anything using P2P for 1/3 of the time.”
April 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
High speed internet access comes at a considerable price premium, and its value is clearly in much improved download speeds. I regularly have downloaded legal files over P2P such as music from ocremix.org or various Linux distributions. If I cannot do that there is simply no point in me purchasing broadband. Why do you think users should pay for large amounts of bandwidth when there is no realistic way they can use it under your throttling policy?
April 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ma Bell. I have been using DSL service since it first came out. I was with Ma Bell for a few years with solid reliable service, until they put a cap on my account with little warning and no way you can monitor your transfer usage until I get a large bill. For a couple of months I was paying over $100/month for residential ADSL service. Was this transfer usage approved by the CRTC? Why offer an ultra-high speed DSL which you can use up your monthly cap in a matter of hours? I dumped Ma Bell and switched to an independent DSL provider and have been happy ever since. Where is the CRTC to protect consumers from these giant monopolizers? My opinion is Ma Bell is way too greedy. Look at data usage on a cell phone? They charge BY THE KILOBYTE??? 5c/kb without a plan. What is this? The 80’s??
Take a look at the dispute with Look communications and Ma Bell which caused connection problems with my DSL service with Look: http://www.look.ca/en/files/Look_court_order_20080319.pdf
April 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Why should the innocent and the legit pay for actions of a few? Even then, the ISPs *invited* such users by touting “unlimited” plans in the late 90s and early 2000s. Back then there wasn’t enough HD capacity to fill with downloads. Now there is. And the bandwidth needs grow.
What they would do is target individuals who hog bandwidth for illegal use. But this requires them to packet sniff user data. This then becomes an issue of privacy. But I’m sure they already do or would do this anyway.
The face of technology is changing. Even the providers of technology are unable to control it. Technological determinism. Bell should embrace this reality and work harder to improve infrastructure. Otherwise it will just be a matter of time when people’s voices become louder and a competitor arises to provide what they need.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Why is bell offering faster and faster internet speeds when it is clear they are unable to support the demand?
Without using bandwidth intensive programs such as peer to peer applications, what is the point of a 16Mbps internet connection?
Bell already has monthly caps on how much bandwidth they are using, why haven’t they just decreased those caps?
April 12th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
First, I congratulate Mr. Bibic for doing this interview. As an employee in the telecomm sector, and formerly for Bell itself, I understand the importance of networks, capacity planning and tiered services to remain competitive and continue to grow earnings and margins.
My question for Mr. Bibic: is Bell not concerned that by becoming a manager of the traffic they carry, they could end up facing liability for the content they carry, a liability not incurred by “dumb pipe” transit providers? That is by introducing this meticulous level of management, does Bell not open itself up to calls for it to control P2P, copyright infringement or the distribution of libellous content through its managed network?
I also wonder how Bell intends to provide next generation services like IPTV (offered by most other incumbents like Telus, Saktel and MTS in their markets) if they need to manage bandwidth on a service that utilizes comparatively little bandwidth like their retail and wholesale DSL products versus streaming TV or even more importantly, streaming HDTV.
Thank you
April 12th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I would like to know whether Bell is considering throttling all encrypted traffic, like Rogers is doing right now, to defeat bit torrent encryption, which will end up crippling many business related traffic.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
This might be viewed as an irrelevant question, but “in the interested of Bell, can you promise not use PR sound bites, such as “in the interest of our customers”, during the rest of this interview?
April 12th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Bell has publicly stated that “there has been no backlash from customers, despite the incidents of the past week.” As an investor I am concerned. Various news outlets have been on this story since the story broke a couple of weeks ago, and the momentum seems to be building. How are you going to address the Ontario Teachers Pension fund regarding this issue?
How do you answer to the viability of future revenue growth in the business when you cannot meet the demands of your current customer base?
April 12th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I am currently a Sympatico customer who will be cancelling their service shortly and I would like to have 2 questions asked:
First, why is Bell blaming these new measure on “bandwidth hogs” if Bell sells a service that allows a customer to use X Gigs a month in bandwidth, and this customers uses their allotted amount even if they use almost all of it. How does that constitute a “bandwidth hog”, aren’t customers simply using there allotted share of the network which they paid for? Should it still not be delivered at the advertised speed in accordance with their own contract? If there is a network capacity issue, it seems more likely that it is the result of the network being oversold. I’m curious if someone orders a meal in a restaurant and cleans their plate, does that make them a “hog” for eating what they paid for, or should they leave some food on the plate so the restaurant can sell it again to the table next to them?
Secondly, I recognize unlimited plans may no longer be realistic, but why haven’t “Heavy Bandwidth” users been given the opportunity to pay for what they use with new product plans? Personally, I have no problem paying more for my internet than my neighbour if I use more of it. However, I’m not referring to simply removing the cap on overage charges, as charging $1.50 per Gig is not in line with industry standards.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Why do you advertise high speed connections, when you’re going to throttle the bandwidth?
You can’t tell me you’re expecting people who buy 5 MB/sec connections to only surf the web and check email.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I would like to know whether Bell thinks it is in a conflict of interest (I do) when it is throttling traffic?
What justification can it give for stifling a truly democratic delivery system, such as the internet, which is against its best interests in selling its other services.
Services like Rogers are currently throttling and placing previously non-existant limits to downloads at the same time as services like Bittorrent Vuze or Apple iTunes movie rentals are coming onto the scene to compete (and Blockbuster is reported to be investing in set-top movie rentals through the internet).
Both Bell and Rogers will compete with these services, with sacrifices coming from their digital cable or satellite services.
Does Bell think what it is doing is fair to these fledgling services?
Where does Bell suggest Canadians go to get competitive service if Cable Providers own their areas and Bell caps phone line DSL service for all ISPs? (I can’t choose Shaw cable if it is only Rogers in my neighbourhood! and now I can’t go to another DSL ISP to receive better competitive service If Bell is effecting their lines which they have already paid the bandwidth for wholesale).
Jeff Preboy
April 13th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Is it true that Bell is intentionally keeping their new Omni Max DSL under wraps? If so, then shouldn’t Bell be making their long time, highly priced T1 information pipe customers aware of this MUCH faster, more affordable alternative?
How much money does Bell save from traffic shaping?
What percentage of subscribers fees would it have cost to over time, if Bell were continually re-investing said fees to avoid any need for traffic shaping?
Does Bell consider traffic shaping to be an imperative necessity to survive?
April 13th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Since you have devices in place to open a packet, inspect them and discriminate based on its contents;
What assurances do we have that you do not logged the contents of peoples packets?
Do these throttling devices have storing capabilities?
What data is being stored on Canadian people?
What data is being stored on the wholesalers customers?
April 13th, 2008 at 3:11 am
You claim to only throttle activity during “so called peak hours,” I would like you know how you consider 4pm – 2am (42% of the entire day) peak hours?
Your throttling of encrypted traffic is harming my ability to earn an income as is effects my remote desktop. Furthermore, business doesn’t only occur from 9 to 5.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:05 am
If Bell can get away with what can safely be explained away by saying “network management”, what is to stop it in the future from treading further down the path of deciding what traffic it likes, and what traffic it doesn’t like?
Does this open the door to future meddling with requests, such as redirecting CBC News in favour of CTV News? Will I be required to download Globemedia’s Video on Demand instead of Corus’ or Alliance’s?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Show us your usage data, stop spouting nonsense.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Mr. Bibic,
Is traffic management via shaping a zero sum game? I am an occasional P2P user who accesses all legal files via this technology. In each case, there is always an alternative method to download this content, be it HTTP, or FTP. By squeezing down the available bandwidth on P2P I will fall back to using these alternative methods, so the net bandwidth savings for Bell is 0.*
Furthermore, falling back to these older content distribution technologies hurts the content providers whose work I desire. P2P is a cost effective and legitimate method for distributing that content. I submit to you: The media rich content available on the internet is that which has allowed Bell to grow its broadband customer base. If the utility of Bell’s network to access this content is reduced, so will be the size of your customer base.
* In some cases it can be argued that there is a negative savings as P2P has a probability that the content is available on Bell’s network thus reducing the amount of traffic that has to be passed to the backbone network. Whereas downloads via HTTP or FTP need to, almost always, transit through a backbone network.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I would like to know how many customers Bell has been losing since they brought there network management practice on their own customers.
Is there any significance in these subscriber numbers?
Is what everyone is claiming true? Are the losing customers to other services and this is the reason for these draconian practices?
Or is it simply a management accountants wet dream?
April 13th, 2008 at 9:37 am
As Bell’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, can Mr. Bibic confirm, or defend Bell’s status as a “Common Carrier” for its regulated and tariffed Gateway Access Service between a customer and their service provider? I’m asking specifically about the regulated Gateway Access Service Bell is mandated to provide under the Telecommunications Act.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I am a Rogers customer have had enormous problems with their throttling. There is nothing wrong with downloading legit stuff from the internet. I’m sorry but I just like British TV shows not even available here. So I am a Bandwidth “hog” which means using the service I purchased to it’s fullest extent. I never get the speedy service I pay for. Rogers is continually advertising how they are “improving” my service. How funny.
The whole point of this rant is to say that I was going to switch from Rogers because as of June I am going to be charged much more for the same crappy service because I will no longer have unlimited downloading. I was going to switch to a ISP dry loop with unlimited downloads and NO THROTTLING.
Please ask Bell why they are doing this at approximately the same time as Rogers is introducing bandwidth caps ?
Ask them if they allowed us to use our connection at the advertised speed wouldn’t it be much faster and therefore free up the network ? I don’t understand why slowing up certain connections makes the internet faster it just delays the inevitable interminably.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Today, Bell is ‘managing’ Peer-to-Peer traffic. Tomorrow, it could just as easily be VoIP service from their competitors, or VPN traffic from people working from home…
Allowing Bell to continue interfere with the traffic of their competitors sets a dangerous precedent — if they’re permitted to tinker with one type of my data traffic today, what’s to stop them from blocking it entirely tomorrow?
Who in their right mind could see Bell’s behaviour as anything but anti-competitive?
April 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Q. Since you have decided to limit service for 3rd party ISP’s and for your Unlimited Internet on the Simpatico service when you had the Unlimited Internet can I decide to limit the amount I pay for my phone bill?? Because it only seems fair for me to limit my payment since you bell seems it fair to limit service.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
On the subject of net neutrality, do you not feel it’s discriminatory to block certain protocols like BT?
Knowing your response to the first question, respond to this.
I decide to download a file say 1GB in size & I have the option of using HTTP or BT to download said file. Let’s just assume the file is a Linux distro to keep from going off topic.
If I choose HTTP my download speed will average 400Kbps to 550Kbps
If I choose BT, Bell throttles me to just 30Kbps
I ask you, if your networks are so congested why can I download the same file at full speeds via HTTP, shouldn’t you be throttling my HTTP download to help your congested networks also?
April 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
How would Mr. Bibic feel if all of a sudden the electric company started saying (out of the blue) it couldn’t provide enough power to meet its demands anymore and therefore it was restricting the use of electricity for Telecom? or that Telecom electricity was suddenly more expensive than other electricity?
How does Mr. Bibic defend the idea that throttling is just away to hide the actual cost of a commodity by placing restrictions on its use? This sounds a lot like the system access fee. Of course the plan is only $40 a month on the poster but then you’ve got a $5 system access fee or you aren’t allowed to use the service as much as promised.
How much money for the infrastructure Bell uses came out of government pots over the years? isn’t that advantage enough?
Why can’t Bell and other Telecom companies stop lying to their customers?
April 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I’d like to know why I was made to pay the same monthly rate for a vastly diminished service. I’m told they’re doing this to improve service, so I’d like to know why my High-Speed internet account becomes a low-speed connection during the only hours I use the net. What is the now-unused bandwidth being used for?
I’m also curious as to why Bell didn’t inform their customers of this change, particularily if it’s as beneficial to the overall user base as they claim.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
(Sorry Spark, you may not have time in the interview to go through this comment which I realize after typing is really huge!)
To Mr. Bibic:
I just want to check with you that I’m understanding Bell’s situation. I’d like to shine some light on the future, so could you bear with me?
Here’s my idea of the story so far. Bell wants to give their customers a reliable and satisfying service. And when the networks get clogged, Bell wants to let people with time sensitive traffic continue their use as normal. So with traffic shaping, Bell is able to keep those users satisfied, and the others get their data, just not during peak hours. Is this okay for a summary?
Now, I’d like to share my point of view on the situation. I’ll start with a simple and hopefully illuminating metaphor (especially for those listeners who’s eyes glaze at the word “packet”).
I live in an island city. At another island city, a few kilometers away are some stores that I really like to shop at. These two cities are connected by a single highway. This highway is the fastest and most reliable way to travel between the cities and it is owned by Bell. Unfortunately for me, it has suddenly become very popular to shop at the other city. People travel in droves and this connecting highway quickly becomes crowded. The highway has a limited number of lanes, so people end up lining up, waiting to use the highway to leave for that other city.
The business on the other island hear reports of the huge traffic jam and think to themselves, “Oh, if only more customers could get across that highway, my customer base could increase a hundred-fold!” But, business continued as usual, with both the customers and businesses wishing for something more.
Then one day, an enterprising business named GAP created an unprecedented partnership with Bell, the owner of the highway. With this partnership, travelers who would buy items from GAP’s store on the other island would be able to skip the traffic jams and zip across to the other island. GAP paid Bell for this privelege and now travelers who were sick of the traffic jams could just promise to buy GAP merchandise and they’d be free of all the headaches and lineups!
Of course this was wonderful for GAP’s sales, they’d increased 400% in one week and shareholders were immensely pleased with the clever scheme. Other companies saw the advantage of this and soon signed up with Bell to help their customers speed across to the other island. Soon, all of the biggest comanpanies from the other island, the “who’s who” of the box stores, had made partnerships with Bell and Bell was benefitting greatly (and the shareholders rejoiced).
The small companies from the other island, unable to afford the partnership with Bell discovered that their previous customers were spending all of their money at the biggest box stores. They saw their sales dwindling and knew they had to change or they wouldn’t survive.
Today, the small stores able to adapt continue to serve their customers. They have well adopted the role of “supporting merchandise”, wisely steering clear of the products that the box stores offer. (The end.)
So, I’d like you to understand, first the excellent business venture Bell made in this story. The were able to profit greatly without having to spend a dime to improve the highway.
Next, I’d like you to understand the role Bell was able to play in shaping the economy of the islands. By holding the “key” to the business strategies of all the stores on the other island, they were able to shape and mold a new economy into being.
So my question is, do you understand that Bell and other ISPs have the power to change the market by charging content providers for using their networks?
And, do you understand that if this approach is taken, innovation may be stiffled as new (and penniless) companies will not be able to afford these contracts?
The next question’s about accountablity. Some member of the public may wonder at the motivation of Bell’s traffic shaping strategies. “Is there really a problem?” “Are they being pressured by US entertainment giants?” “Are they pushing out competition in order to further their own technology?” So, my question is, does Bell have a responsability to be open with the public about their decisions about what data gets priority on the networks?
Okay, so enough with the apocholyptical questions. Here’s a lighter one: if customers were willing to invest in better infrastructure, would Bell be open to improving their service?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Sympatico advertisements say that my line is not shared with my neighbours (like cable) so it’s always fast even at peak times.
So if my line is not shared, my neighbour’s don’t effect my speed – then why is throttling necessary to guarantee me uninterrupted service? Or is your advertising lying?
April 14th, 2008 at 3:49 am
OK, I would like to know WHY is that Bell believe is it “THEIR” network??? The ONLY reason they got to have this infrastructure is because of all the Government grants and priviledges they got to actuall create an infrastructure. If they think that it is “THEIR” monopoly, they will be sorely dissapointed. People are pissed-off. Ripped-off. Wait for the clash-back!
April 14th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Could my packets sometimes be mistaken for those belonging to a “bandwith hog”?
I haven’t heard anybody talking about a so called “increased level of satisfaction”. Have you?
Since Bell is no longer a neutral provider, what liability do you expect to incur because of this?
April 14th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Bell’s shaping of third party ISPs traffic raises a number of disturbing points.
Without DSL resellers there is no broadband competition. The Duopoly of cable and DSL from two providers is not a competitive market place. Bell asks to be released from the obligation to resell DSL, however this is a local loop service, of the type that Bell has long been mandated to sell (T1, T3, etc…) Without the sale of this type of service, there would have been/be no Internet at all.
The throttling, as implemented definately affects P2P (which can be used to provide legal high quality video content), and apparently affects some VoIP connections. These are both services that Bell competes with, and provides at high profit margins. Bell has no interest in allowing these services to thrive on the Internet.
As I understand it, the throttling is occuring not because the backend lines are saturated, but because Bell has made a decision to throttle their competitors traffic. If there is enough backend bandwidth then there is no reason to throttle, if there isn’t enough bandwidth the backend bandwidth should be upgraded, in the mean time the available bandwidth should be shared between the active users on a non-protocol based basis. P2P users should not be unfairly targeted, it should be based on customer IP address.
In the past Bell has certainly emphasised the non-shared nature of DSL, where your neighbours usage of the Internet shouldn’t affect you. This was supposed to be one of it’s major advantages compared to cable. It still is in most places.
Finally, as a user of DSL resellers for years, I know that Bell runs an extremely stable local loop system. Many of my friends complain that their Bell Sympatico DSL connections have issues, often with DNS or Internet connectivity. These issues don’t stem from the DSL network, they stem from Sympaticos inability to maintain a robust IP infrastructure, something that their competitors have no trouble doing (at a fraction of the cost as well).
April 14th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Bell has long argued that one of the major benefits of its service over that of the cable companies, is that individual households have dedicated lines and are thus not affected be ‘neighbour usage’. If this is the case, then how can they now claim issues with bandwidth hogs? If my line is direct, then it doesn’t matter what I do with it does there? They can’t have it both ways – either the service isolates individual households or it does not. Were we being lied to before, or are we being lied to now?
April 14th, 2008 at 9:26 am
If we in north america are so in danger of breaking the internet (the whole p2p is eating all our badwidth argument) why is it that places like japan which have significantly higher internet bandwidth usage are able to cope with the ammount of traffic but we need to resort to throttling and traffic shapping to maintain our system?
Why is it they can afford to provide FIos lines, but we in NA are stuck with asymmetric dsl lines at fractions of the speed.
also, why is it that isps seem to think that internet traffic only goes one way. Upload speeds are just as important as download speeds… and as a content provider myself, a paltry 600kb/s is hardly enough to offer my content up to my customers.
simply put… we dont need throttling. we need a free internet, and we need to fix the last mile. THe last mile is truly what is preventing us from keeping up with internet demand. We can upgrade the core fast enough (added wavelengths in fibre lines for increased bandwidth) but the last mile will always be a bottleneck. invest in that and maybe you wouldn’t have to prevent me from providing video content to paying customers.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Everyone can agree that this issue is complex as is the technology behind it.
Can anyone find one single expample of someone who has the technical background to understand this issue who actually agrees that it is the right approach? Anyone who is a network engineer and is unbiased will clearly state that Bell is in the wrong.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Bell Sympatico has recently upgraded their DSL service speed to 7mbps.
We are not fools.
Q) Why would anyone need this kind of bandwidth if NOT to use P2P? What does Bell expect 7mbps is going to be used for?
Almost no websites can deliver content at this speed. P2P is the only application that can effectively use this bandwidth. If I paid for 7mbps, why am I being restricted to a slower speed?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Hi,
I was a Sympatico Highspeed customer for a few years. I enjoyed the ‘Highspeed’ until recently. When I signed up with Bell they told me that their internet is always fast. Now, I am not too sure about that comment. Bell says that they need to throttle P2P connections because they are clogging up their networks. However, Mr. Bibic shouldn’t your company be fully responsible for that? Your company is responsible for upgrading the networks to support all users. Why are the clients being punished for using what they have paid for? In addition, Bell is also throttling 3rd party DSL providers which doesn’t make sense to me. Those 3rd party providers are lessening the load for Bell and then Bell stabs them in the back.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“A small U.S.-based firm is quietly testing its behavioural advertising technology with a number of Canadian Internet service providers that some industry observers say could create an outcry over consumer privacy concerns and reshape digital marketing strategies.
In an interview, NebuAd cofounder and chief executive Bob Dykes confirmed his company is testing its hardware with a number of undisclosed Canadian Internet service providers and has launched a sales team in Canada to locate more business.”
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=443523
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!:
Does Bell Canada confirm or deny that it is one of the “undisclosed Canadian Internet service providers” in the above article?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
How does Bell feel now that they are turning the technological clock back on Canada by limiting the growth of their network ?
Why is bell punishing their customers, while increasing user fees ?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I think the biggest misdirection here is that Bell may be traffic shaping on connections that are not “to the Internet”.
If a third-party ISP has a large Usenet server, it may use more bandwidth between itself and its subscribers than between the customers and the Internet. It could even use peer-to-peer protocols between the subscribers – and in both cases, NONE of that traffic goes ‘to the internet’. It’s all private between the ISPs and the customers, using only the DSL lines, and bandwidth the ISP bought from Bell to reach those DSL connections. But Bell would still throttle P2P connections used in this way.
How does Bell *know* that the P2P connections it throttles are actually Internet connections, and not private P2P connections among the ISP and its customers? And – if all this traffic is on bandwidth that is paid for by ISPs, then why is there any need for throttling at all?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
NebuAd is shockingly similar to Phorm – the advertising outfit in the UK (incidentally one of NebuAd’s competitors)…
Phorm raised the ire of users across the United Kingdom when their invasion of people’s privacy became public knowledge.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/14/bt_phorm_2007/
I sincerely hope that Bell will learn from BT’s and Phorm’s example.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
You could ask them why they continue to lie about web traffic stats.
http://www.ellacoya.com/news/pdf/2007/NXTcommEllacoyaMediaAlert.pdf
April 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Warner Brothers plans to make hundreds of movies and television shows available for purchase over the Internet using BitTorrent software. Isn’t Bell’s throttling practice going to interfere with such legit growing business model?
April 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
that website should be up if your ilnes are letting people in to it … it’s on a server in my apartment, as allowed by my TOS with TFNet.ca .
Anyway: Your policies are interfering with my access to nntp text-only newsgroups on the news.sff.net server. There is no binary traffic on those newsgroups, which are discussions of science fiction and fantasy with some of the authors in the genre.
Do you suppose you can refine your DPI enough to only block binaries until the whole issue is resolved?
April 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I would very much like to hear the response to questions posed/posted by Kevin McArthur in these comments. Excellent questions, Kevin!
April 14th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Bell needs to realize that the internet evolves. It’s not just used for sending your emails and browsing text-based websites anymore. Nowadays it’s about downloading and streaming high definition video, playing online games, and other bandwidth-intensive applications…and it’s only going to get more demanding. They need to invest in better infrastructure to handle the upcoming demands as the internet grows at an exponential rate. We could learn a lot from other countries, like in Asia, where people can purchase 100Mbps connections for the same price as Bell’s 5Mbps connections and not be throttled with certain applications like bit torrent.
In the next 5-10 years, I believe one of the biggest issues that we will face as a modern society is net neutrality and the corporations fighting against it. It’s going to get a lot worse than simply throttling bit torrents. Internet traffic is going to become one of the most important commodities in the world in the decades ahead, and Bell’s current business practices are taking it all in the wrong direction. I’ve had a high speed connection for 10 years now, and the simple fact is while on Bell’s service some of my things are slower than they were 10 years ago due to traffic shaping and throttling – this is not progress. This is greed.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:43 am
This past winter, a Media Studies class at the University of Guelph actively discussed the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens living and participating in our ever-accelerating media and informational landscape. One collaborative project that emerged, without mandate from the course syllabus or credit, was our creation and continued compilation of a Media Charter of Rights & Freedoms, which we hope will come to represent the civil, political, legal, and personal interests of Canadians who interact with information media, most notably the Internet. A link to this document can be found at the end of the comment/question.
Many of these rights and freedoms were written (and continue to be written) with the intent to prevent the abuse or disruption of information channels in the name of economic gain.
I am interested in:
A) learning how Mr Bibic and Bell Canada manage to see the practices of throttling and traffic-shaping as non-violations of the IFLA Internet Manifesto of 2002, or section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
B) understanding how traffic and information monitoring, and the subsequent alteration and/or intentional limiting of access to that information, does not constitute a violation of customer agreements with Bell Canada’s own Terms of Service for its Sympatico Internet service, which state:
“Your Service Provider may, in its sole discretion and without your consent, migrate you to other networks and platforms or change its suppliers, as and when it becomes necessary. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Your Service Provider may effect such a migration or change in suppliers in order to maintain, upgrade or enhance the performance of the Service and other deliverables provided to you hereunder, to ensure continuity of the Service and the integrity of Your Service Provider’s network, and/or to comply, as necessary, with manufacturers’ requirements. You expressly agree that any such migration or change does not constitute amendment or material change to this Service Agreement or to the Service.”
“Your messages may be the subject of unauthorized third party interception and review. An individual with Internet access can cause, among other things, damage, incur expenses and enter into contractual obligations while on the Internet. All such matters are your sole responsibility. Your Service Provider has no obligation to monitor the Service, any content or your use of Your Service Provider’s networks. However, you agree that Your Service Provider reserves the right from time to time to monitor the Service electronically, monitor or investigate content or your use of Your Service Provider’s networks, including without limitation bandwidth consumption, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request from any applicable jurisdiction, or as necessary to operate the Service or to protect itself or others.
You hereby acknowledge that Your Service Provider, its affiliates, agents and suppliers may retain and use any information, comments or ideas conveyed by you relating to the Service (including any products and services made available on the Service). This information may be used to provide you with better service.”
How does throttling/manipulating/preventing certain kinds of internet traffic, but not others, constitute mere “monitoring” of information, for the purposes of “service enhancement”?
For more information, and to access or contribute to the Media Charter of Rights & Freedoms, please visit http://culturshock.wordpress.com/
April 15th, 2008 at 7:38 am
My question based on this link.
What makes Bell Canada believe they own the “last mile” infrastructure/wires? Seems to me this “last mile” infrastructure was paid for by tax dollars.
http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/04/14/more-bell-canada-misinformation-and-misdirection-in-attempt-to-justify-questionably-lawful-throttling/
April 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I would like to ask Bell “Why does ExpressVu offer Much Vibe and not Much Loud?”
This ommission leaves Bell customers/old school rockers (like myself) at a loss for a music video channel on a 3-digit dial.
MuchMusic, MuchMoreMusic, and PunchMuch don’t really play videos any more. I like MuchVibe because they actually play music videos, but it isn’t really my type of music.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
If an ISP opens up and examines the packets being sent over their network, do they not become partly responisble for the contents of that transmission if it contains illegal or illicit material?
This packet sniffing technology is certainly interesting and I would think it would make it much more difficult for an ISP to claim nuetrality when they admit to examining the contents of their customers communications.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
If an ISP opens up and examines the packets being sent over their network, do they not become partly responisble for the contents of that transmission if it contains illegal or illicit material?
This packet sniffing technology is certainly interesting and I would think it would make it much more difficult for an ISP to claim nuetrality when they admit to examining the contents of their customers communications.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Bell can go to hell. There a bunch of greedy fascists.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
What gives bell the right to view what we’re doing on line with their packet sniffing technology? Is this not a form of invasion of our privacy? We’re talking about public internet here not a high school server or a business server. What gives bell the right in the first place to limit the bandwidth we’re paying for? Bell can at least lower their prices to make up for what there doing. Thanks!
April 19th, 2008 at 5:08 am
I am a TekSavvy customer. By necessity, my Internet traffic must travel though some Bell infrastructure which is leased by my ISP, but ultimately my bits comes from Peer1. I have never entered into any agreement with Bell.
How does Mr. Bibic justify his company dictating what I can and cannot do with my connection?
April 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I found the discussion interesting. Everyone’s talking about the high end. I’m moving to my cottage for retirement in Eastern Ontario, its a family place that we’ve owned for sixty years. We’ve had telephone service there for most of those years. We moved from party connection to private line about thirty years ago. Now we pay the standard telephone rates for the past sixty years and to tell the truth the telphone system probably has never beenm upgraded since the fifties and now we can use sympatico and get speeds of up to 24, awesome! What year is it? Its not like we had some special extra low phone rate because of our poor lines, we have been paying the same as everyone else but we still have a 1950’s telephone system. There are two booster stations between my place and the local town six miles away. What has Bell been doing with all of the telephone money our family has been paying for the last sixtyu years? Wasn’t some of that supposed to go to upgrading the telephone lines? Obviously they never did and took the cheap route to maintain services. All telecommunications services should be meeting target performance levels of service. Because of topography wireless not available here but even if it was I should have competition between telephone line access and wireless. People can’t be part of the twentieth, no matter the twenty first century if our telecommunications systems remain as primitive as they are. Its not like I’m paying 2.00$ a month for a telephone system and .0010 cents a month for internet (that’s about what its worth if price was based on speed. No wonder rural areas are suffering! I want high speed and competition. All ISP’s should be coopted to expand and improve the service,.. or else it should move to a public utility like hydro.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
When Hi-speed is low-speed.
We were bell phone subscribers for years. When it came out, we had the top end internet package, which turned out to be a bit of a scam.
After about a year of wondering why Bell high-speed was so low-speed, hours on hold with their custmer service (I use that term loosely), and numerous visits from technicians, one of the techies finally let it slip.
IF you are more than five kilometres from a phone centre, Bell can’t actually ever deliver the 5 mbps… in fact, they would be lucky to consistently it at 1 Mbps. (Which is their “lite” service)
Keep in mind, I lived in the West end Ottawa – not in the middle of nowhere.
So Bell Sympatico, knowingly sold me high-speed internet at a level that they could not deliver.
When I complained, I was told to read the fine print…. the service was ‘up to’ 5 Mbps.
Frankly, a company like Bell should be ashamed of this type of practice.
Needless to say, I no longer do business with Bell Sympatico, and took every opportunity to inform neighbours and friends.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
All I can say that is Bell’s practices and corporate accountability are a joke.
This interview did not shed any new light on the problem and if Bell can provide a solution, just the standard corporate line and always pushing Bell as a ‘feature rich’ service. The throttling is happening for all services that are non Bell approved. This is very much a conflict of interest.
Like others who have suffered by their practices, I have officially canceled my phone and internet services with Bell. Never again…
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
I saw what I believe was a rebroadcast of the Bell program (Sat., June 21st). That show highlighted all the problems I’ve been having with Bell. Low speeds (we finally found out from a tech it’s because we live on the edge of their service area); being sold a high speed package when our phone line can’t handle the high speed (which resulted in a LOWER speed). Promises of returning us to our original package have failed spectacularly. We were repeatedly promised that we wouldn’t be charged for bandwidth usage, and yet, continue to see the charges show up. The kicker? After a lengthy talk with a Bell rep, promising a return to our $29.95/month, no bandwith charges plan, we were charged $190 the very next month! I spoke to two supervisors, who couldn’t even agree on what they could promise me! Bell now has a new department devoted entirely to dealing with customers with bandwidth issues – I’m not surprised. I’ve now cancelled my service with them, and say “good riddance”!
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
1) How can a company expect to advertise a product, then deliver on a product not as advertised?
More succinctly: Does this not equate with false advertising and fraud?
2) The telecom industry is not just a private enterprise, but also an important national infrastructure. If the current private companies licensed to run that infrastructure cannot be trusted, what is to stop the government from either awarding that contract to another company, or to nationalize the infrastructure?