Here is a link to the Comcast decision by the FCC in the States to bring down the hammer on a service provider diddling the Internet service and access to their customers. They were "throttling" also some times called shaping. This is when your Internet provided has a different rate for downloading than uploading. So you con download easily at the rates you are paying for. However to upload a video from our computer - or to do video conferencing, you have a much lower speed put on your system. As a result you are not getting the Internet service levels that you are actually paying for when this service provider trickery happens. It is a RIPOFF!
We know this is happening in Canada too and it needs to be challenged at the CRTC. I don't think our regulators have the kind of teeth the FCC has to levy hefty fines for such customer abuse...but it ought to.
I will be posting more on this and other Net Neutrality and Alberta SuperNet issues over then next few weeks as well. Stay tuned!
Is internet shaping as simple as limiting upload rates? My impression was that companies actually use methods to check the type and content of data packets as they travel over their network in order to determine their priority. As a result, your 600Mb movie download might be miserably slow, but your IP telephone call will get through the network with priority.
ReplyDeleteIt uses technology very similar to that used in the great firewall of China, actually, to make very quick decisions about the priority of different kinds of data, and what to do with them.
I just love comparing telecoms to totalitarian regimes, don't you?
Speaking of Great Firewalls, thank goodness for the Olympics, I can actually go to your site without using any workarounds!
Gee Ken,
ReplyDeleteIt is fun to hear you rant!!! so informed too when it is your money on the line....
...being a simple techno-peasant type I ran into these issues when I did some some comparison shopping... I always look at every option from every major company... sigh... and being a bit old fashion insist that I need to understand terms.
What I learned: if you know what you want to do in roughly what amounts (which things are 'unlimited' and which are low usage) you decline packages and they then customize 'packages' (the old fashion word is negotiate)for you at a price you are willing to accept. All non-gov't charges are negotiable and can be waved (customized)by the sales agent ... now you may have to smile nice and bat your eyes to get the best price... most agents are resistent to some types of changes... but it is a fun sport and well worth your time.
Results: i purchased from Bell... in spite of my resolve not too, but Virgin was really just a reseller... and the nice assistent from the v.President mobility of telus gave me the best (most incredible deal) on a world phone... but it just did not fit my needs..... AND FINALLY i purchased a very few shares in Rogers... 'cause they are a great company and their sales staff are THE most resistent to making deals... better for my share value!!!
...the data downloads and uploads are fast and fine, so far... If I could own shares in a country that controlled everything on its own terms... well, we will examine CSR of Rogers just after cashing the dividend cheque... tee hee
I can rant too. greengirl
Hey - gentle readers - click on rob and see his blog and great pictures from China.
ReplyDeleteAs for greengirl...I think I have a crush on her.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTraffic shaping is fine if you are upfront as to what you want to achieve. The Traffic shaping to which Ken is referring is Bell's and Rogers' traffic shaping to eliminate P2P traffic - the legal and illegal download business.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak to the Rogers issue because it is not a resalable product, and there is only one supplier of cable services. The problem with the Bell issue is that there are a number of Bell DSL resellers - mandated into existence in the early days by virtue of first adopters, and then protected later by CRTC fiat, also affected by these decisions to traffic shape. So if you are offended by Bell's decision to deliberately slaughter your access speeds, you are affected by the same decisions if you try to go to another not-so-controlling DSL provider.
Generally the deep packet inspection that Bell is talking about should allow other protocols - UDP for one - to pass by undeterred and unaffected. Where Bell is putting these sniffers though are on their least capable networks using older technology, because this is where the congestion happens. The net effect is that the CPU is so bogged down on inspecting packets at the same time trying to handle or reject packets that ALL packets get hammered.
So if you are buying a VOIP service from a 3rd party like Primus, and that service is going over a DSL reseller, your VOIP service that you are paying for goes into the toilet as well.
It wouldn't be so bad if the cynical among us didn't notice the coincidental traffic shaping and sudden appearance of Bell's music downloading service all happening in the same month. Would Bell use a monopoly position to damage a product or process that Bell suddenly alternatively sells....? Nah - couldn't happen could it.
The other issue is that if Internet is now a utility that is as necessary as heat, light, phones and highways, then Canadians need to be highly aware and wary of any attempt to limit access or the utility of that....utility. I believe that Bell and Rogers are playing with free speech issues when traffic shaping. THEY are deciding what you can and cannot do.
This is not a capacity issue. Bell can it upgrade its congested part of the network for cheap. Their existing up-to-date network can handle orders of magnitude of traffic more than what it is handling now.
I think way bigger issues are being messed about with than what appears, and I for one don't like it. I believe that all political parties should be buttonholed and hounded on their position on Net Neutrality. These are Constitutional and Free Speech issues, as well as a competitive issue, and the Governments of the day do influence the CRTC.
Ultimately the CRTC will decide on Net Neutrality, but they need a little from the folks on the Hill.
Hey Crackers 2008,
ReplyDeleteMost informative. Thanks. It seems to me that all this is somehow related to the ability to wage "cyber war" that you hear about in Europe... are things that different here from a technological perspective, so that it is not an issue? are we slow to think of it? free association with your utility and free speech got me thinking about this. Anyone else have some comments/ information?
thx greengirl