Application headers aren’t necessarily a fabrication, but the way Mr. 5% depicts them certainly is

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20780127-Bells-NEW-July-11th-CRTC-Submission

Al Gore may have invented the Internet, but Mirko Bibic has now invented “application headers”.

Better yet, Bibic states that the IP header is part of the TCP packet ! Great work of fiction !

86 pages designed to confuse people, waste their time , in the hopes that after reading it, they will just decide to belive whatever Bell has been saying withough chceking for facts.

I would greatly hope that the CRTC would charge Bell canada with contempt of court for knowingly having submitted lies in its documents. You can’t have a serious decision process when Bell lies in its submissions and expects the CRTC to just sit down , take it and believe everything Bell has stated.

The users pays a ton to access content.

The ISP wants to rape the user more and more and more for what is already paid for.

Here low priority traffic users (youtube foe example) is screaming bloody murder because their traffic is being managed regardless of other higher priority traffics. This is very self serving.

If Google wants unlimited bandwidth, why don’t they spend the money, lay some fibres and set up a private network?

1) Bell frequently made sure it pointed out the difference in the P2P protocol, and are using that as a justification to continue INDEFINITELY its centering out and throttling of P2P. Bell says over and over that P2P will “always” consume any new bandwidth supplied by upgrading the network, and that P2P activity is not “time-sensitive”. It is, therefore, logical to assume that Bell is now setting the stage to have P2P “legally” consigned to a Slow Lane! This does nothing to calm the cry for Net Neutrality.

2) Regardless of whether or not P2P is time-sensitive, why should Bell automatically get to assume the authority to make judgments about what is “more important”, and what transmissions to degrade? I use P2P to exchange work-related projects, some ARE time-sensitive and require me to work on them and return a revised product. Increasing numbers of people are doing this. Bell cannot hope to make a protocol itself “illegal”. Again, proving the need for Net Neutrality.

3) To help justify the “management” of the last mile, Bell continues to cite various CRTC tariffs that can’t possibly be included in the written language of the GAS contracts, which were based on actual flat bandwidth rates. (Contracts are supposed to trump all else.)

4) Bell states in a few places that the traffic management and launching of their own content services are unrelated and unconnected, yet there is really no explanation offered as to why it’s supposed to be all right for them to consume their own bandwidth for their own purposes, while denying bandwidth to subscribers and 3rd party contracts.

Since when has this been “Bell’s Network”??
If we give them this one, we’ll be swallowing more shit in the future.

Whatever happened to the Common Carrier, anyway?…
…You know, the “Dumb Pipe”, that just passed along the information packets, without regard to what was in them?…
…The one that wasn’t allowed to offer their own services, for fear of competition conflicts?…
…The one that kept telling you it didn’t have the resources to even try to stop spam??!

Thanks for sharing this!