Comments on: Bell-Not-So-Sympatico: throttling P2P

By: Toronto Bell

Toronto Bell — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:26:28 +0000

I agree with the others. If Bell is selling a 60 Gig cap then that is enough of a restriction. You are paying for the 60Gb then they should not try to control the way you use that bandwidth and prevent you from even using the 60Gb you are paying for.

It is like renting a house out to someone but telling them they can’t use water or electricity between 4 pm and 2 am.

We need politicians to stand up to these tyrants that want to monopolize all telecoms and keep us in the dark ages like South Africa. As far as internet speed goes Canada lags way behind Europe and even communist China.

By: WT

WT — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:18:55 +0000

The real problem in Canada are the POLITICIANS who fail to protect it’s citizens from being systemically stripped of their wealth by the “protected” big boys. Business has proven over recent years just how immoral it can be when left unregulated and unaccountable. So-called Crown Corporations also take regular bites out of the citizens pockets, with Municipalities joining in on the feeding frenzy! WHere are the modern day Ralph Naders/Robin Hoods!!!!

By: sd

sd — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:41:23 +0000

Personally I don’t have any issue with having with Bit Torrent, but I do have a problem with what restrictions Bell may come out with next. If they get away with acting as an internet cop, then they will start imposing more restrictions. Where does it end? Will I be forced to use the yahoo search engine over google because Bell is a shareholder?

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:02:05 +0000

I have Cogeco and my combined Download and Upload is limited to 60 gigabytes per month for Standard service. I checked Rogers and Bell Sympatico who, interestingly enough, have the exact same limitation.

Realistically, I do not have a huge issue with a limit on how much “Bandwidth” as 60 gb is almost reasonable.

I do however, have an issue with an effort by these companies to manipulate with what we download.

What really is going on here is that these large companies (Bell, Rogers and Cogeco) want people to purchase Cable TV or Satelite TV to watch the shows and movies.

I for one do not want the TV services that they offer, just an unimpeded Internet connection and I can live with the 60 gb limit.

By: cyberscan

cyberscan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:21:13 +0000

I wonder when these people will start blocking or interfereing with SIP (internet telephony) traffic as well as p2p. I know if my provider does, I will be cancelling my Internet service because I will have no use for high speed service if I cannot use it.

By: beeker

beeker — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:59:08 +0000

Quoted from a Bell/Sympatico notice recently posted in other forums had this info in it. As Bell/Sympatico would never release the actual numbers, Here is somewhat of an extrapolation.

“Important Usage Billing Changes
dated March 13, 2008″

“only 5% of our base exceeds 60GB/month. In fact 82% of customers stay under 10GB /month.”

This leave 13% of customers using between 10 and 60GB/month.

So using the above info at worst case usages:
82 x 10GB = 820GB
13 x 60GB = 780GB

820GB + 780GB = 1600GB

1600GB/95 = 16.8 GB

In effect 95% of Sympatico’s own user base average about 17GB a month at worst.

Now lets say the other 5% use 500GB a month on average per user:

5 x 500GB = 2500GB

1600GB + 2500GB = 4100GB

4100GB/100 = 41GB

so as per Bell/Sympatico’s numbers: overall, I don’t see a real issue here with total amounts of bandwidth used, as 41GB is not a huge amount in our present internet world….

So what is the real reason for capping and traffic shaping?

By: Andrey

Andrey — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:58:21 +0000

Not only that, they’ve lowered the throttled speed to 384/384

By: Toronto Guy

Toronto Guy — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:38:59 +0000

Throttle down the $50 you are paying for Bell to $20 then it’s fair game.

By: Roger Bellend

Roger Bellend — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:11:47 +0000

These types of problems are not limited to Bell.

It’s bad enough that practically no one can get the top quoted speeds, due to distance from the exchange, line noise and equipment, but many ISP’s have already veered quickly in the direction of price and service fixing, as well as restrictions that tend to give you dialup speeds (dependant) at certain peak times for X times the price.

A typical example of this is when you first sign up for a new service and the line is ‘tested’ for best speeds. Many throttle your speed at this point, giving a total sham top range, at worst, less than half your real line capabilities. I cannot -prove- this, but I know it is true based on my own research and is something all ISP’s would vehemently deny, even when faced with absolute proof.

My only advice is to never sign up for long contracts, always complain or request a MAC at the first sign of punitive or ridiculous throttling or lower than expected sync rates and keep changing your service until you find one that is ok. It’s the only way to regulate this joke of a regulated system. Stuff like this does nothing but stifle the originally intended growth.

If you have no choice for your ISP, move to a real democracy

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:45:01 +0000

Well we already know the real issue is they oversell, plain and simple.
Your Xmb/s connection is not really Xmb/s, it’s a little bit Xmb/s and mostly unused so we can resell thet unused portion to others. They try to get around this by adding limits in the TOS.

I a not a third party ISP so I don’t know how the system works, but if they oversell to their standard customers, what are the odds that they oversell to the 3rd party ISP as well.