<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: There&#8217;s no net neutrality: Sandvine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24586/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24586</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:36:32 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Devil's Advocate</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24586/comment-page-1#comment-978318</link>
		<dc:creator>Devil's Advocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:58:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24586#comment-978318</guid>
		<description>@Charles:

I agree with everything you&#039;ve said, except one...
Sukasa is not a Bell shill.

Everyone&#039;s troll alarm seems to be a little too sensitive these days.
Best to just turn them off and comment on what&#039;s important.
The shills mean nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Charles:</p>
<p>I agree with everything you&#8217;ve said, except one&#8230;<br />
Sukasa is not a Bell shill.</p>
<p>Everyone&#8217;s troll alarm seems to be a little too sensitive these days.<br />
Best to just turn them off and comment on what&#8217;s important.<br />
The shills mean nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24586/comment-page-1#comment-978288</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24586#comment-978288</guid>
		<description>To Sukasa:

Your a Bell troll! Nobody who pays for high-speed Internet access like me and millions of other Canadians are OK with traffic shaping! Bell is too cheap to lay down more fiber optic cable to its network, it&#039;s that simple! It all comes down to dollars and cents, I&#039;m with a 3rd party ISP who has bought some bandwidth wholesale from Bell. I&#039;m paying $40/month plus taxes for an unlimited 5 Mbs down and 800 kps; I don&#039;t want any slowing down of my service period!

I&#039;m angry as hell because when I&#039;m using a bit torrent application, I see all the other users I&#039;m connected to, Bell throttles even during so-called non peak hours (the average down speed I get is only 150 kB/s); European, Asian, Middle Eastern and some Americans are doing 500 kB/s to 800 kB/s even some are beyond the 1 MB/s speed! Before Bell started throttling, my average download speed using a  bit torrent application was 500 kB/s! I want my speed back and I want what I&#039;m paying for which is an uninterrupted high-speed 24/7!

Bell is trying to convince Canadians that throttling is reasonable, no it&#039;s not because while I&#039;m being throttled and paying for a max 5 Mbs download speed; Asians, Europeans and Americans are getting 3 to 6 times faster the speed with no throttling! Why? Because in those regions of the world there is competition and companies suppling Internet access are willing to invest in a large cable fiber network! Bell Canada is a monopoly and they aren&#039;t willing to invest in expanding their cable fiber network, therefore it&#039;s Bell that&#039;s the problem! Throttling is just a stopgap measure, Bell can&#039;t keep throttling while Canadian demand for more Internet usage keeps rising soon Bell will either have to throttle everyone 24/7 down to an equivalent speed to dial-up or they&#039;ll be forced to finally lay down more fiber optic cable!

Personally, it&#039;s time to break-up Bell&#039;s monopoly and allow competition in the fiber optic cable game! If that happens, there will be sufficient bandwidth for all Canada&#039;s growing needs! So Sukasa, you can&#039;t be anyone other than a paid Bell insider trying to justify Bell&#039;s throttling because traffic shaping isn&#039;t necessary anywhere else in the world!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To Sukasa:</p>
<p>Your a Bell troll! Nobody who pays for high-speed Internet access like me and millions of other Canadians are OK with traffic shaping! Bell is too cheap to lay down more fiber optic cable to its network, it&#8217;s that simple! It all comes down to dollars and cents, I&#8217;m with a 3rd party ISP who has bought some bandwidth wholesale from Bell. I&#8217;m paying $40/month plus taxes for an unlimited 5 Mbs down and 800 kps; I don&#8217;t want any slowing down of my service period!</p>
<p>I&#8217;m angry as hell because when I&#8217;m using a bit torrent application, I see all the other users I&#8217;m connected to, Bell throttles even during so-called non peak hours (the average down speed I get is only 150 kB/s); European, Asian, Middle Eastern and some Americans are doing 500 kB/s to 800 kB/s even some are beyond the 1 MB/s speed! Before Bell started throttling, my average download speed using a  bit torrent application was 500 kB/s! I want my speed back and I want what I&#8217;m paying for which is an uninterrupted high-speed 24/7!</p>
<p>Bell is trying to convince Canadians that throttling is reasonable, no it&#8217;s not because while I&#8217;m being throttled and paying for a max 5 Mbs download speed; Asians, Europeans and Americans are getting 3 to 6 times faster the speed with no throttling! Why? Because in those regions of the world there is competition and companies suppling Internet access are willing to invest in a large cable fiber network! Bell Canada is a monopoly and they aren&#8217;t willing to invest in expanding their cable fiber network, therefore it&#8217;s Bell that&#8217;s the problem! Throttling is just a stopgap measure, Bell can&#8217;t keep throttling while Canadian demand for more Internet usage keeps rising soon Bell will either have to throttle everyone 24/7 down to an equivalent speed to dial-up or they&#8217;ll be forced to finally lay down more fiber optic cable!</p>
<p>Personally, it&#8217;s time to break-up Bell&#8217;s monopoly and allow competition in the fiber optic cable game! If that happens, there will be sufficient bandwidth for all Canada&#8217;s growing needs! So Sukasa, you can&#8217;t be anyone other than a paid Bell insider trying to justify Bell&#8217;s throttling because traffic shaping isn&#8217;t necessary anywhere else in the world!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sukasa</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24586/comment-page-1#comment-978200</link>
		<dc:creator>Sukasa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24586#comment-978200</guid>
		<description>As far as traffice shaping as a concept goes, I&#039;m not against it if it&#039;s used responsibly.  If you use shaping only to maintain a minimum level of service for each client, I would have to agree with it&#039;s use.  It&#039;s when you start poisoning streams or unnecessarily cutting bandwidth that traffic shaping becomes an issue IMO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as traffice shaping as a concept goes, I&#8217;m not against it if it&#8217;s used responsibly.  If you use shaping only to maintain a minimum level of service for each client, I would have to agree with it&#8217;s use.  It&#8217;s when you start poisoning streams or unnecessarily cutting bandwidth that traffic shaping becomes an issue IMO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Koltai</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24586/comment-page-1#comment-978181</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Koltai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24586#comment-978181</guid>
		<description>Thanks Robert. 

So basically with 14 million non-talking users, skype uses 13671875 terabytes or 13351 petabytes or 13 exabytes per month. (or 20 million 700 meg movies.)

Good thing everyone is not actually using it huh ?

Yep Mr Sandvine - right on with the accuracy of your statements - as always...... NOT. 

I think Sandvine have the ability to a world leading development house - but why do they have to keep exagerating ? Sort of ruins their credibility really.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Robert. </p>
<p>So basically with 14 million non-talking users, skype uses 13671875 terabytes or 13351 petabytes or 13 exabytes per month. (or 20 million 700 meg movies.)</p>
<p>Good thing everyone is not actually using it huh ?</p>
<p>Yep Mr Sandvine &#8211; right on with the accuracy of your statements &#8211; as always&#8230;&#8230; NOT. </p>
<p>I think Sandvine have the ability to a world leading development house &#8211; but why do they have to keep exagerating ? Sort of ruins their credibility really.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24586/comment-page-1#comment-978174</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24586#comment-978174</guid>
		<description>@Thomas,

Someone has done that for Skype.  With Skype on but not in use, it still uses 1+GB per month bandwidth.  Video to video Skype chat with voice uses 200MB per hour.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Thomas,</p>
<p>Someone has done that for Skype.  With Skype on but not in use, it still uses 1+GB per month bandwidth.  Video to video Skype chat with voice uses 200MB per hour.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Koltai</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24586/comment-page-1#comment-978172</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Koltai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24586#comment-978172</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s sad that Both Sandvine and Juniper appear so determined to sprout &quot;But our Product works&quot;.

Someone needs to tell the committee that &quot;Yes, their product woks IF they all conform to the same standards. which of course none of them do because to obtain market edge they have to make some part of the kit (hardware or software or both) at least slightly proprietary.

Then of course as soon as you have some proprietary advantage on one piece of kit - that&#039;s a buying decision for some customers but not others.
Result? dropped packets at the meetme rooms.
In the nineties we had this with Ascend Frame Relay, Lucent Frame Relay and Cisco Frame Relay.
Frame Relay wasnt really frame relay unless it was talking to the same manufacturers box.

IP is to a certain extent a technology dumb-down leveller.
However, QOS requires flags to be passed on from big iron to big iron. If a provider has a different SIP flag set because he is a microsoft partner and not a cisco partner - ooops - there&#039;s the end of the QOS.

Interesting that Sandvine consider that VOIP isnt a big network user.
Someone should one day analyse Skype packets across a single ISP router wherein none of the ISP&#039;s customers are utilising Skype but all have skype turned on.

I wonder if Skype/Ebay/Hutchinson Mobile is a Sandvine Customer......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s sad that Both Sandvine and Juniper appear so determined to sprout &#8220;But our Product works&#8221;.</p>
<p>Someone needs to tell the committee that &#8220;Yes, their product woks IF they all conform to the same standards. which of course none of them do because to obtain market edge they have to make some part of the kit (hardware or software or both) at least slightly proprietary.</p>
<p>Then of course as soon as you have some proprietary advantage on one piece of kit &#8211; that&#8217;s a buying decision for some customers but not others.<br />
Result? dropped packets at the meetme rooms.<br />
In the nineties we had this with Ascend Frame Relay, Lucent Frame Relay and Cisco Frame Relay.<br />
Frame Relay wasnt really frame relay unless it was talking to the same manufacturers box.</p>
<p>IP is to a certain extent a technology dumb-down leveller.<br />
However, QOS requires flags to be passed on from big iron to big iron. If a provider has a different SIP flag set because he is a microsoft partner and not a cisco partner &#8211; ooops &#8211; there&#8217;s the end of the QOS.</p>
<p>Interesting that Sandvine consider that VOIP isnt a big network user.<br />
Someone should one day analyse Skype packets across a single ISP router wherein none of the ISP&#8217;s customers are utilising Skype but all have skype turned on.</p>
<p>I wonder if Skype/Ebay/Hutchinson Mobile is a Sandvine Customer&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
