p2pnet news | Freedom:- Bell Canada is desperately hoping the throttling scandal will go away. But unless Bell admits it was wrong, seriously revamps its policies and business plans and starts treating its customers with care, it ain’t gonna happen, not as long as Ottawa Gal, who first broke the story last year, is around, keeping both eyes open for herself and other Net users.

Here’s her latest >>>

Part 1: The fictitious 5% causing the all the problems.

As per the now (in)famous leaked document:

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

So what we have is:

1.82% use less than 10-gigs/month
2.5% use 60.1-gigs or more per month
3.This leaves 13% (100% -(82%+5%)=13%) using between 10-gigs and 60-gigs/month

As this p2pnet.net user noted here, and as beeker1 says on the Bell’s own forum:

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 why the capping and traffic shaping is my question"?

Beeker raised a good point!

One hundred percent of Bell’s client "base" works out to be using "41GB". It’s not a huge amount in our present internet world, and very far from causing a problem so damaging that the drastic measures of throttling the wholesale ISPs and its own users is essential.

It’s nothing more than a money grab.

Now the last 5% of the "base" which, Bell claims to the media, its users, to the wholesale ISPs, and to everyone comprises the problem by using all the bandwidth, is in fact false.

Bell actually made, and sells, an internet package for those using 90-gigs or less, so that must be removed from the fictitious 5% of the abusers. After all they’re servicing them.

In addition, for the moment, Bell makes and sells to current users a $25 "unlimited" internet package for those who go over 90-gigs, as seen here, and here.

Again, out of that 5%, a good percentage is sold "unlimited" specifically to download MORE THAN 90-gigs of data.

If Bell is catering to these users and selling this to the users, how are they the problematic abusers? They are, after all, being catered to and being sold a package to suite their needs —- and which, needless to say, Bell is happy to profit from.

So there’s our 5%. All catered to and sold packages to meet their bandwidth needs by Bell!

If this 5% of the users, who are the apparent cause of all the internet problems, were indeed causing 90% of the traffic, would Bell make and sell packages (to profit from) to them to specifically exceed 90-gigs of data?

Thus, basically, Bell’s claim that 5% of the users are the cause of internet slow-downs is a crock and an excuse to throttle.

Maybe someone at Bell can tell us how someone using between 60.1 and 90-gigs (part of the 5% evil-doer crowd) is wreacking havoc on its network and 95% of all its other users; so much so that Bell had to throttle the entire Sympatico user "base" and now the wholesale ISPs user "base," but at the same time manages to sells them packages to go above the "abuse" limit.

Go figure. the

That kid using 61-gigs per month has caused congestion in all northern Toronto! He/She is a 5-percenter and is responsible for 90% of all the traffic; we must throttle all of Canada to regain control!?

Riiiiight.

Part 2: Bells use of the word "Base"

Another thing Bell fails toexplain is the use of the word "base".

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

What is this "base"?

What’s included? And what shouldn’t be included?

What data and time-frame of the data were used?

The client "base" and its stats don’t hold water if Bell includes the data from those on the light or basic-light (essential) package. This would skew the average bandwidth used and also skew the data that 82% of their client "base" uses below 10-gigs.

Also, Bell didn’t sya the client "base" data used to make these stats included ONLY high-speed DSL users.

Of course, the 82% would use below 10-gig, if Bell included data from dial-up users, basic-light users, cell data transfers, wimax. These packages are meant as low B/W usage packages and can’t be included. But then again THIS IS Bell’s "base", and Bell hasn’t defined what the "base" is.

And when were these stats of the "base" gathered —- the current for year to date? An accumulation of data over the years? Data from two years ago? These questions must also be answered since B/W consumption from this year and two years ago won’t be the same due to online trends.

On top of that, territories need to be stipulated.

Fort example, Bell’s Quebec limits are 30-gigs and Ontario limits are 60-gigs.

If the average high-speed user in Ontario does 40-gigs and the average user in Quebec tries their best to stay below 30 gigs so as not to get over-charged, these aspects, too, will skew the data.

So in summary, the whole bit about 82% of our "base" is below 10-gigs can’t be taken seriously seeing as how they probably include non-high-speed data, as well as data from different territories.

Part 3: Exposing the Bell media spin

Per Bell’s chief of regulatory affairs Mirko Bibic, to the media, here and here:

[…] the company plans to oppose CAIP’s application to the CRTC and argues that it needs to use technology to better balance Web traffic during peak traffic usage.

"The fundamental problem is that close to 95% of subscribers are negatively impacted by a very small minority of Internet users," Mr. Bibic said.

I take Bibic’s "95% of subscribers" to mean the company has gathered statistics on their wholesale clients, such as Teksavvy, and compiled stats for all subscribers, including their own.

But the wholesale ISPs have NOTHING to do with Bells bandwidth.

NOTHING!

Will Mirko Bibic, Bell’s chief of regulatory affairs, clear this up? Will he tell us what the user "base" is composed of?

Or is this just more media spin being spun?

How can he say , "the company plans to oppose CAIP’s application to the CRTC and argues that it needs to use technology to better balance Web traffic during peak traffic usage." and include the wholesalers?

Bell can’t include the 3rd party ISPs in "Internet traffic" statistics because the 3rd party ISP don’t buy their "Internet traffic" from Bell!

More media spin!

What Bell is providing is "Internal Network" traffic, which has nothing to do with "Web traffic" and is a zero cost factor.

After copper connectivity, it leaves Bell and is handed off to the wholesale ISPs.

There’s NO "web traffic" or procured traffic from Bell.

Why is Bibic spinning the media on this? One must wonder ………

Again, one must question the "base" (the 95%) and take into account the useless data (dial-up & basic-light) that would negate the meaning of the data.

What percentage is actually over 100-gigs? 200-gigs? 300-gigs? 500-gigs? Why is Bell seeking to profit from them and servicing them, and yet complaining about them?

Can it be that their whole argument for throttling is riddled with holes?

Chances are the percentage is a very low 2% doing above 300-gigs.

To rephrase the point, why does Bell attract the so-called "abusers" by offering "unlimited" or offering 90-gigs for 10$ more!

It’s very clear Bell wants this 5% by making tailored made options for them —- at a price. It’s another revenue stream!

Part 4: Conclusion

a) Given the data, there’s no way the 5% of the heavy users (60.1-gigs or more) cause the problem, although that’s what Bell wants the media to believe, ausing them as a feeble excuse to impose a full out throttle on its wholesale clients (ie. the competition).

b) Bell is obviously trying to sway the media with fictitious data about how wholesalers’ (independent ISPs) "web traffic" is the same as Bell’s "web traffic". But it’s not and has nothing to do with it.

c) CAIP should challenge the data of Bell’s "base" to make sure these values aren’t skewed by dial-up, basic internet services, territory limits, and to make sure the data is current data and not that of two years ago.

d) The 5% needs to be challenged since Bell tailor-makes packages for this 5%, telling them they can download more or download all they want by selling unlimited.

e) Bell is using its monopoly position to try and increase internet costs (and its own profits) and in the end affordable internet will be a thing of the past.

On an end note, here are a couple of statements made by Bell Canada Enterprises CEO, M. Sabia:

"We have a regulatory framework that is acting as an impediment to innovation and competitiveness."

"In telecom, the regulatory environment is trailing the times. Stifling innovation. Limiting consumer choice."

"Competing and winning in video, networking, voice over internet protocol, television, wireless and highspeed internet. Building new streams of income."

I see only ONE entity impeding competitiveness and limiting consumer choice.

I see only ONE regulatory body that can stop this anti-competitiveness, this stifling of the little competition and consumer choice.

I see only one entity trying its best, with fictitious media, to try and legitimize its actions of throttling users and the wholesale ISPs.

I see only one entity trying its best, to increase the cost of internet for all of Canada including the cost to the wholesale ISPs, which we will foot the bill for.

What do you see?

Meanwhile, in this Canadian Press story:

"Bandwidth doesn’t just fall from the sky," Bibic said, adding that demands for more bandwidth would not resolve traffic congestion issues and that traffic shaping is part of a "multi-pronged" strategy used to limit congestion issues.

He dismissed requests that Bell invest in more bandwidth, describing the "irony" of receiving such requests from providers who have no infrastructure of their own and who don’t directly deal with the complications of network management.

Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of TekSavvy Solutions, refutes the statement:

We’re paying a premium to be wholesale customers.

On a separate note, we do have our own infrastructure, Bell’s job is to hand off the connection to us at 151 Front street… We’ve hired Bell for the last portion of it, they are one of the Vendors for delivery a portion of our infrastructure. We’d use someone else for this, but we can’t.

Your argument of no infrastructure is kind of funny as the word monopoly should ring in your head very heavily… We can’t circumvent Bell in the ground! This is why Tariff 5400 was made an essential service… Stop and imagine for a second the likelihood of any one company being able to gain access to place their own equipment to every home in Ontario/Quebec… Bell has been given access to areas in these two provinces that no other business has access to or will ever have access to, so no, it’s a false statement to say their network, when you consider the help they’ve received to put any of this stuff in place, and the fact is, they’re a vendor of ours, who were hired to deliver a connection back to Toronto for us, nothing else.

On the Bandwidth out of the sky statement… If you place traffic on a Gig-E connection and you pay, lets say $2,000/month of fibre cost in the ground…. If you use 1/10 of the total pipe available of 100% of it, it still costs $2,000/month. So, lets assume you look at TekSavvy’s case for a second. I’m rounding off numbers a little here for a second… We pay $2,000/month on 1 Gig-E connection, $1,700 for the interface fee per month, and $21 per user per month on that Gig-E. The estimates are roughly 1,000 users per 100Mbps on our end, so the math would be $21 X 1,000 per 100Mbps. Being as a Gig-E is 10 times that, you find yourself with $210,000/month of income to bell per saturated Gig-E connection.

To paraphrase Gaudrault, if he could use a company other than Bell, he would. But there is no other company able to provide this connectivity direct to your home. It was built on taxpayer’s money and government money (the phone lines and structure).

Are the government and taxpayers ready to install another wired infrastructure to do away with this monopoly?

I’m left with a jingle in my head that you probably heard on TV commercials,

Hands in my pockets, hands in my pockets, hands in my pockets ….

Stay tuned.

Ottawa Gal - p2pnet

[Ottawa Gal is a long-time p2pnet reader and comment poster who’d rather remain anonymous. She says she works in the University, likes her cat, reality TV, and Doctor McDreamy. Her favourite web sites are the Michael Geist blog and p2pnet.net. "Privacy on the net is also important to me," she says. "I need a tinfoil hat ;)" She’s also the mother of, "two darling little girls who tore down my ceiling fan thinking it would be fun to hang from it." So she advises parents to, "never have an armchair around from which little ones can reach fans". (No one was hurt ) ]

Slashdot it!

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm and is filed under Freedom, P2P. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 5550 times