Update: This interview has been rescheduled for Tuesday, April 15, 2008.
Update 2: The interview has been recorded. You can listen here.
Play audio:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ?
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?
I like this … feed Mr Bibic the questions so he can invent spin!
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?
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?…..
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.”
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?
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
(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?
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?
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!
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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?
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 ?