CRTC ‘ignored evidence’ in Bell throttling case: report
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Vaxination Informatique’s Jean-François Mezei has been at the forefront of people determined to hammer home the inefficiencies of the CRTC in the ongoing Bell Canada traffic throttling debacle.
“Interesting new filing in the Throttling case,” said a post on dslreports just before Christmas last year.
The Quebec Union des Consommateurs was, from the looks of it, “calling the CRTC out,” it said, going on to quote a letter Mezei sent a letter to CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckeinstein (right) to complain about the way the CRTC operates.
“The second part of the letter introduces the issue of the CRTC having accepted inaccurate facts from Bell in its throttling decision,” he said, promising, “I will develop a more comprehensive document that goes through the actual CoRTC decision to show the various flaws in it, especially those points that relied on incorrect information provided by Bell.”
He’s now fulfilled that promise in a detailed 14 page analysis in which he accuses the CRTC of using inaccurate facts, ignoring evidence provided by third parties, and failing to ask Bell Canada the right questions.
“To understand how the CRTC Council came to this decision, an Access to Information request was made to the CRTC in December to obtain all documents presented to the Council by the analysts,” he says, noting »»»
These documents are now in the public domain and can be obtained from any CRTC office by providing the access to information reference number A-2008-00050. In short, they consist of simple powerpoint presentations devoid of any technical issues, focused on Bell Canada’s arguments and devoid arguments provided by 3rd parties.
In Myths on P2P use of bandwidth, Mezei has the CRTC saying, “P2P applications allow end-users to download a single file from multiple end-users simultaneously, thus creating the potential for faster download speeds”.
And:
“The Commission notes Bell Canada’s submission that P2P file-sharing applications are designed to make the maximum use of downstream and upstream bandwidth and to use up additional capacity in the network as it becomes available. The Commission considers that intensive use of such applications could, during periods of high Internet traffic, result in network congestion and degrade the performance of Internet services for other end-users.”
But, says Mezei analysis, “The Commission failed to note that all TCPIP applications are designed to make the maximum use of downstream bandwidth,” continuing »»»
While it is true that many P2P applications (but not necessarily all) will use otherwise idle upstream to contribute to the P2P network, the Commission failed to note that congestion of the upstream should not be a problem on ADSL infrastructure due to the slow speeds for upstream assigned to modems (800kbps in most cases).
The Commission failed to note that whether one downloads a movie from iTunes, BitTorrent, Bell Video Store or any other service, one will take the same download bandwidth. Evidence was filed to this effect, but ignored by the Commission.
This is very significant because it shows that the CRTC lacks sufficient technological experience to understand and debunk Bell’s propaganda, and this has allowed the CRTC to render a decision based on extremely flawed premises.
The Commission failed to note that the real issue is a change in usage patterns where the access to large media files is becoming more and more popular. Targeting a single subset of applications is not only discriminatory, but does not solve congestion problem since other applications take up as much bandwidth.
In fact, the Commission failed to note that applications such as iTunes or Bell’s Video Store have the same principle of needing to download the file before it is viewed as P2P applications, yet Bell Canada does not throttle them. The Commission failed to note that applications such as YouTube already consume more bandwidth than all P2P applications put together.
And in Is DPI the only feasible option ?, he points out the CRTC notes Bell Canada’s submission that traffic-shaping is the “only practical option that is technologically and economically suitable, at this time, for addressing congestion in its ADSL network”.
However, “The Commission failed to note that the primary, most practical and most economically suitable option to manage this type of network is intelligent matching of ADSL modem speeds to aggregation network capacity,” says the Mezei study, going on »»»
This is a capability which Bell Canada has had from day one and does not require installation of expensive or controversial DPI equipment.
As part of 2008-19, other carriers, namely Telus, have stated that they can manage their network without DPI by properly provisioning capacity to match demand. The CRTC clearly failed to question Bell Canada’s statement that a DPI solution was the only feasible one.
The Commission failed to note that Bell Canada raised ADSL speeds over 600% since 2003 but that aggregation capacity rose by only 50% between 2003 and 2007. (as per graphs provided by Bell Canada in its final 86 page July 11th 2008 filing).
The Commission failed to ask Bell Canada why it recklessly raised ADSL speeds before its aggregation infrastructure could cope with increased demand, especially when higher speeds and marketing campaigns promoted the very downloads which saturate the un-upgraded sections of Bell’s network.
The Commission failed to ask Bell Canada why it raised ADSL speeds for Sympatico customers to 7mbps at a time it was busy installing its DPI equipment to allegedly combat congestion. If Bell Canada knew it already had a congestion problem requiring DPI equipment, why did it still go ahead with Sympatico speed increases that exarcebated the problem ?
Access to Information Act documents show that the Commissions was given information about how the FCC viewed Comcast’s practices:
Comcast’s practices do not constitute reasonable network management, have contravened industry standards and impede the user’s ability to use applications and access content of their choice.
How can the Commission support Bell’s opinion that DPI is the only acceptable option ?
In short, “The Commission could have found a way to support its decision while maintaining technological honesty and accuracy,” says Mezei, adding:
“By using inaccurate facts, ignoring evidence provided by 3rd parties and not asking the right questions to Bell Canada, the CRTC has greatly hurt its credibility in this highly visible dossier.
“By not understanding the technology, the CRTC’s decision has set precedents that go well beyond this one dossier and wich may affect privacy and trust issues of carriers who, from now on, can look inside the contents of packets without permission from anyone and even manage packets differently based on their contents.
“Unless the decision is reversed, the errors in the CRTC’s decision will be accepted as fact and forever devalue not only the CRTC’s relevance, but also the trsut canadians can have in their carrier.”
Click here for the full document.
And stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
February , 2009
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.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Excellent.
Well done.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Yet another proof CRTC is corrupted beyond repair: they turn their eyes blind only when ordered by the industry.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
To bad this never gets on the news in Alberta.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
The analysis report is EXCELLENT!
It completely debunks the entire Bell stance and effectively begs for an examination into the CRTC’s part in all of this at the same time!
The question is, what will happen with this report, now that it’s out?
Who will take action, and on whom?
I mean, is there anyone in that kind of position that can and will?
[starts holding breath, then decides not to]
8 \
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
It doesn’t just start and stop with the CRTC.
It was an entire failing with our “watchdog” whom we call the Canadian Competition Bureau.
It was an entire failing by Industry Canada.
It was an entire failure by the then Industry Minister Jim Prentice of the Harper gov and their total lack of understanding and knowledge.
There should be a whole inquiry into all these failings and with the people who hold these positions.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
“It was an entire failing …”
You’ve just touched on what I was getting at.
That’s why I say I won’t be holding my breath waiting for an ax to drop.
Yes, there *should* be an inquiry into all these failings.
There should have been one long ago.
But, if all those who are supposed to be in a position to do such an inquiry are the same people you need to investigate, who’s gonna be doing it?
FYI: The majority of the seats in the CCB are occupied by Bell/ex-Bell/Bell-friendly people.
: (
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I agree with Reader’s Write,
I say the whole system needs a overhaul.
And in the name of profit, these company’s don’t want to spend the cash to fix the problem.
Instead they take the cheap way out and charge us high prices for inadequate service.
If we’re guaranteed 7mbs, we should get 7mbs 24/7.
So upgrade the system. after all, doesn’t broadband have the capability to handle all that traffic?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:39 pm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another one for Dave Null!
: )
February 27th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
One of the main issues that seems to be flying under everyone’s radar with regards to these internet issues (IE: Net Neutrality and such)
There are only two connection points to the home with regards to broadband/broadcast access. In Canada the vast majority of those two connection points are controlled by two companies: Bell and Rogers Cable.
Both Bell and Rogers have common carrier status (provide dumb pipes to ISPs) and are Internet Service Providers (aka Sympatico/Rogers broadband). They both also have vested interests in monetised content provision over the internet as well as broadcast technologies (Television).
As long as this oligopoly has control of the dumb pipes, they will not do anything to negativly impact their other vested interests in any way.
What is needed is to have the dumb pipes (aka common carrier) be an independent entity alltogether They should not be allowed to be a content provider or direct internet service provider. Their sole business would be to maintain the network infrastructure from point A to Point B. Point A being the home and Point B being an ISP or broadcast provider. They would lease access/broadband to all ISPs and Broadcast providers (including Sympatico, Rogers et al) .
Whoever believes that they own the network now will need to decide what business they want to be in and sell off the rest. In other words Rogers and Bell would no longer own the network and would be ISP/Broadband/telephone service providers only. Or they could sell off the ISP/Broadband/Telephone sections and become the network provider (common carrier) only.
This in effect would definitely open up the market to true competition in the marketplace here in Canada. No single provider or oligopoly would be able to control the network in any preferential manner in effect allowing for true network neutrality.