Bell Canada: Traffic Throttling Mark III
p2pnet view P2P | Freedom:- p2pnet reader G. Smith was moved to contact his local MP, Liberal Bonnie Crombie, when the news broke that the CRTC, created to “ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public”, was bending over backwards to ensure the Canadian public serves Bell Canada.
The bone of contention? ‘Metered internet usage’.
“Dear Mr. Smith”, came the reply, continuing >>>
Let me first apologize for the delay in this response; on behalf of Mrs. Crombie, thank you for contacting the office and sharing your important views on recent CRTC decisions.
Please accept this message as an acknowledgement of your email and that your concerns have been forwarded to Mrs. Crombie.
Your issues with the CRTC are of great concern to Mrs. Crombie and the Liberal Party. We will make every effort to address them thoroughly in the not-too-distant future.
In the meantime, thank you once again and please feel free to contact the office any time with matters pertaining to the federal government.
Sincerely,
Jenn Phillips
Member’s Assistant
Office of Bonnie Crombie, M.P.
Mississauga-Streetsville
“Bell Canada believes it’s found a new, more effective way to milk Canadians, whom it regards as compliant cash-cows”, p2pnet posted on November 2, going on:
“Traffic throttling Mark II is on the way. And this time it’s apparently sanctioned by the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission).”
It’s been re-named ‘metered internet usage’.
Now, how distant is Crombie’s “not-too-distant future”, and what will the Liberal party’s efforts comprise?
Stay tuned.
p2pnet – Bell Canada: Traffic Throttling Mark II, November 2, 2010
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
November 8th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
As I said, you get no actual replies to these things.
You generally get nothing back at all, but if you do get a response, it’s always the standard “non-reply” blow-off, like the one you got, containing absolutely nothing of substance. This one doesn’t give you any indication of their intention to follow up with you later, or what action (if any) would be taken, or even mention who/where the complaint would be forwarded to.
I’ve gotten a number of these over the years, and not one ever took the form of an action or an answer, no matter how many times I would follow them up myself, or how many additional people I would pull into it.
It’s a complete insult to the Canadian Public, and a “quiet” reminder that we are no longer important enough to those in power. They’re protected behind a wall of “processes”, while we are offered very few real avenues to communicate with them.
November 8th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
heh Mr. Smiths “important views” (which is “of great concern to Mrs. Crombie”) wasn’t even important enough to get a reply by M.P. Bonnie Crombie. Instead, some lackey assistant replied. Such are the liberals. Nothing new here. Nothing to stay tuned to here in regards to the liberals who’s deep pockets are filled by the very same telco’s to push their views and agendas.
November 8th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
It seems people are fixated on Bell Canada and those who sell their services.
Why not just stop giving money to Bell Canada by dropping all services where the money goes to Bell Canada? Be it reseller, wholesaler or Bell itself.
Bell services and their up to speeds are a thing of the past. Change supplier. After-all the CRTC states on their webpage there are others to chose from in this highly competitive market.
Jon, why not run a story listing all alternatives to Bell and those who resell Bell? Example: Nexicom, Primus, MNSi, Whiteman, Huron Tel etc etc. Show people there is an alternative they should/could go to instead of those who only funnel money right back to Bell Canada.
With UBB coming, people who use more than 60-gigs are going to look elsewhere anyhow. Many might find out they have an alternate choice to Bell and its’ resellers, while some may not.
November 8th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
@ RW : ‘why not run a story listing all alternatives to Bell … ‘
Excellent idea. Any chance of getting you to do that? (Worth a try –
)
Cheers!
November 8th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Doesn’t interest me. Been there, done that already. But you could start by maybe asking the same people who run deep Packet Inspection Canada. They should have a good list. http://www.deeppacketinspection.ca/
November 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
“…why not run a story listing all alternatives to Bell and those who resell Bell?”
Here, I’ll do the Toronto listing for you right now:
- Rogers
Comes complete with 24/7 throttling of certain usages, upstream blockage of torrents, bandwidth caps, and DPI-assisted customer monitoring and regulation. You get no more for your buck than Bell, you get denied certain things, and the connection sucks in many parts of the city. (I need a booster just to get an acceptable TV signal, and it still craps out, resulting in loss of service for anywhere between 5 minutes and 3 hours.)
This concludes the listing of non-Bell providers in the Toronto area.
All the other providers are attached to Bell, one way or the other.
November 8th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Doesn’t Rogers simply connect through Bell’s trunk to connect their users to the Internet Hub?
November 8th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
*Internet Hub* I mean backbone.
November 8th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
@Devil’s “ASE” Advocate
You left a few out from the GTA
This is what I mean when people just are not aware. Not every place has choice. But many do. Yet they are oblivious to it.
November 8th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
@RW:
Which few did DA leave out? Like Teksavvy or Primus, who use Bell or Roger’s trunk lines (like Cogeco in Essex County)?
Even Shaw in BC explained to my former roommate that Shaw pays Telus by the bit and that’s why our connection speed would crawl after 2-3 days of bitTorrenting by my roommate.
I am just speculating for Ontario as I assume it is the same as BC, but while Rogers/Cogeco/Shaw have a large plant installed and do provide Internet access to their customers, they are still using Bell’s fibre trunks and links to the US and trans-Atlantic.
And since any other provider you can think of uses Bell’s installed plant (which was not paid for through Bell profits), there really are no other options, you are using Bell’s plant unless you establish your own backbone connection to the Internet.
November 8th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
@Robert:
Rogers is cable network, while Bell is all DSL.
Cable is the only alternate infrastructure to Bell’s in this scenario.
Rogers has no 3rd-party providers on its network.
________________
@RW:
Please enlighten me as to what I’ve missed.
(Remember that my post referred only to the Toronto area, won’tcha.)
And, what’s with the “ASE”?
________________
[Probably 2 questions I shouldn't even bother asking.]
November 8th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Teksavvy wouldn’t even be in the list since they only resell bell’s wholesale service. However, Teksavvy is apparently running an FTTH project some place in Ontario last I read last year. No clue what’s happening with that. But on Deep Packet Inspection Canada we can find an outdated lists of such ISP’s, http://www.deeppacketinspection.ca/isps/
Since then more have sprung up, such as Novus, Eyesurf, SkyNet, Yak etc to name but a few. These are the true independents making a difference instead of just reselling Bell wholesale.
Like I said, they may not be in your specific area, but many people like DA above don’t even have a clue Novus has taken root in Toronto, or telus’ fibre in condo area’s. Plus more.
They are very area specific, yet worth mentioning since they are a choice that many are blind to.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
and just to touch base on this comment:
“Rogers has no 3rd-party providers on its network”
Once again you are mistaken. Rogers does indeed have 3rd parties wholesaling and reselling on it’s network, which once again you are oblivious to.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
@DA:
I know cable infrastructure goes to your house, but I was saying that I believe Rogers uses Bell’s lines outside of Canada, just as Shaw uses Telus’ lines (why else would they say Telus charges ‘by the bit’?).
It doesn’t take much for Rogers to connect their central office to Bell’s existing fibre trunk networks which run through the major CO’s throughout Ontario and Quebec. At some point they have to meet in order to connect to AT&T’s backbone for the Internet and I believe Bell got their first with DSL/ADSL and Rogers simply noticed “hey, we have enough bandwidth to provide internet access” after some upgrades to their network.
They still have to connect to Bell’s network, unless Rogers has their own trunk lines connect directly to the Internet backbone.
That’s all I am trying to say (summary question: Does Rogers have their own backbone connection or do they share with Bell?).
I know they don’t share the same lines when they leave your home, duh one is coax and the other twisted pair until they reach the fibre connection points and then connect to the cable CO or telephone CO, but at some point they have to connect to servers that are not owned by end-users such as you or me. Which means they have to either piggyback on Bell’s Internet backbone connection or they have their own.
A quick Google search (sorry Jon for using Google) didn’t answer that question, mostly “how do I connect to the Internet.”
November 8th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
@RW “Once again you are mistaken. Rogers does indeed have 3rd parties wholesaling and reselling on it’s network, which once again you are oblivious to.”
Not very helpful. Regardless of what attitude you feel someone has given you, you don’t necessarily have to react with the same attitude, as you could be wrong.
This is only text, it is very easy to misinterpret, especially when we develop biases against someone. You feel DA is attacking or oblivious or giving you a hard time, so no matter what DA writes, you’ll interpret things that way. You could be wrong and you won’t help the situation by responding with little jabs at people, in response to what you interpret as a jab from them.
And to all:
We know this: you cannot avoid Bell or Rogers unless you have your own Internet backbone connection! Does TekSavvy or Novus or SkyNet? I haven’t a clue, if you do know, then by all means share. I hazard a guess many do not, and if they did they would have limited service as it is NOT cheap to install fibre from city to city. Bell knows this very well and they sure as hell are not going to share without making a profit or two or three.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
@Robert
I am just pointing out that what he is stating is farthest from the truth.
As for back-haul or transit from the bell network to the net, there are indeed other players. FiberNoire and Fibernetics are just two examples. As is global internet transit providers like Tescali (former name?) and others.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
People are stuck in this mindset or false fanboy belief that nothing exists outside of Bell 3rd party DSL resale or Rogers 3rd party cable resale. But this isn’t the case in all areas.
November 8th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
@RW ” false fanboy ”
This doesn’t support your cause, assuming you intend to educate those who do not know of companies that have their own Internet backbone connections or fibre trunk lines.
Insults only further discredit you and result in even more “shill” labeling, because that’s what shills and trolls do, throw insults instead of linking to hard evidence (not RIAA claims, because if they have to hide how they generated the numbers, then it is not hard evidence at all).
November 8th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
@Robert:
Rogers is an independent infrastructure from Bell’s. One is cable, the other is DSL, and each run their own servers. And, as far as I know, Bell doesn’t have an infrastructure outside the country, and Rogers has never been mandated to allow 3rd parties to resell their cable internet. The two are supposedly bona fide competitors, and don’t share anything that I know about in the Toronto area.
My whole talk here was about Toronto only [...]
The bottom line is, practically everywhere in Canada offers no more than 2 unique providers – one dominant cable company and/or one dominant telco. For the Toronto area, there is Rogers and there is Bell. They both fuck you around, and they’re both expensive, yet neither offer you anything deserving of those premium fees. All other “competition” is tied to Bell. This scenario seems to apply to most of the country, whether its “Rogers vs. Bell”, or “Bell vs. Videotron”, or “Telus vs. Rogers”. Cable companies aren’t sharing their networks, and DSL is all controlled by one telco in that area, which is usually Bell. End of story.
November 9th, 2010 at 12:37 am
@Robert,
I pasted a link above. Did you not see it? Also keep in mind it’s outdated and there are more now.
@ATE
“and Rogers has never been mandated to allow 3rd parties to resell their cable internet.”
Search for TPIA. It exists and has existed for a long time. Also maybe do a search for 3web/CIA/Cybersurf (bought by distributel). I think Jon may even has a story or two referencing Cybersurf.
TPIA cable tariffs can also be found on the CRTC website.
Search for 3men@work as well.
TPIA has been around for years.
“For the Toronto area, there is Rogers and there is Bell.” Plus a few more that are area specific in Toronto.
And I agree, everything and *everyone* revolves around Bell and Rogers. They should say a big fuck you to them both and to those who just resell their wholesale service, if possible, and support the 3rd option if it exists. Be it wireless, or an indi with their own equipment or or own CO. Matter of fact I seem to recall Acanac opening their own CO or colo’d at one in Toronto. How about that! Another Toronto ISP independent of Bell!
While these bell resellers like teksavvy are ok to save 5 or 10$ dollars, they are just bells lower cost alternatives. Nothing more. It’s meant to funnel money right back at Bell using ancient “up to” 5-meg internet. They are not an independent ISP in any sense of the word.
If the new CNOC coalition had any meaning, they would be banding together to build their own thing. I won’t hold my breath though. They seem too content to just resell Bell services at ever increasing prices for ancient DSL that averages 2.5-meg. And yet people are blindly fighting with them to keep on selling average 2.5-meg internet at ever increasing prices. People need to open their eyes.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:37 am
@DA:
Rogers is an independent infrastructure from Bell’s. One is cable, the other is DSL, and each run their own servers. And, as far as I know, Bell doesn’t have an infrastructure outside the country, and Rogers has never been mandated to allow 3rd parties to resell their cable internet. The two are supposedly bona fide competitors, and don’t share anything that I know about in the Toronto area.
I know, I already said they have different plant and CO’s but if they didn’t connect to anything else, they would each have their own, private, connected to nothing network. This isn’t the case because both Bell and Rogers networks are connected to the Internet somewhere. They have to be otherwise they would have to have their own copies of… well… the WWW!
That’s what I was trying to say. Each has their own physical plant all over Ontario, but at some point those trunk lines (and I know they do) follow the 401 South and connect to the US networks through the huge Bell building in Windsor. The fibre then travels under the Detroit River and connects with the networks in the US.
Up here in Ottawa, I used to work for a place that once emailed us saying “We have an AT&T Internet Backbone Connection” which means there has to be an extension of the NYC backbone up this far (probably a branch from the one that goes to MIT).
So they are not completely disconnected at all, they do not operate entirely stand-alone, they connect with the Gateways in the US, otherwise we would have only a Canadian Internet, no other servers would be accessible, no other Gateways, nothing.
I never implied they have an infrastructure outside the country, but they have to connect to an infrastructure outside the country, and that infrastructure is the US’s Internet Backbone.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
@Robert:
They each have their own gateway.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
^^ That was me, Robert. – DA
November 9th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Robert said
“Up here in Ottawa, I used to work for a place that once emailed us saying “We have an AT&T Internet Backbone Connection” which means there has to be an extension of the NYC backbone up this far (probably a branch from the one that goes to MIT).”
AT&T Canada went bankrupt around 2003 and wanted out of Canada.
Rogers bought out AT&T wireless (I think there was both AT&T Rogers Cantel and Singular), had to remove the name AT&T, and put their own brand.
UniTel Went into bankruptcy and emerged as Allstream, if I recall right. MTS (Manitoba Tel Service) then bought Allstream. Thus MTS-Allstream and acquired national AT&T structure (fibre etc).
AT&T does not exist in Canada as far as I know except under the name AT&T global services and to only service Americans and foreigners from out of country.
The fibre, dark fibre, backbone, transit etc is no longer under AT&T’s name. It’s MTS Allstream.
Search p2pnet for MTS Allstream.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
@RW ^^
The email was from the IT folks (or MIS or IS or whatever they want to be called now) in 2005 when I was at a certain company in Kanata. I don’t believe they were referring to AT&T Canada but AT&T US – connected to their Gateway, instead of routing along Bell through Windsor or whatever other connections they have (or Rogers/Shaw/Videotron).