I was speaking in a general way, if I suspect my ISP is shaping my traffic and I want to make a complaint, how can I prove they are actually shaping the traffic?
I took no time whatsoever to submit my comments. Be sure to tell Internet Pat what a wanker he is. I can't remember his last name, but he's the VP of marketing for Sympatico there. He's probably also responsible for those annoying cartoon beavers plastered all over the newspaper ads and television. I wish they would get rid of that ad campaign. Beavers are supposed to be symbolic for hard working Canadians. Nowadays most of their workforce lives in India. Sorry, I'm just a little jaded. I used to work
And they have a form for feedback? Brace for obvious shit storm...
Don't worry, their packet sniffers will interpret all these small upstream connections as P2P and reply with forged "Thank you for your feedback" pages.
Put it on iTunes or wind up like all the "Plays For Sure" suckers did. Is there a supportable, platform agnostic DRM available for the movie industry?
No there isn't, because FOSS OS users don't want DRM to begin with - which is a noble cause but, of course, also prohibits them from playing nice with The Man until the revolution finally comes. Which is most likely a very negligible loss, but you really shouldn't whine about not being able to watch DRM'd movies on Linux, because it's a feature, not a bug.
The problem with DRM on FOSS is that it's too hard to make it work in the slightest. With Linux you could easily write a video driver and a sound driver that just dumps everything to disk, thereby automatically bypassing the DRM. They could probably do some trickery by ensuring that you are only running specific drivers, but that will only go so far. The open source nature of Linux allows you to do whatever you want with the system. Thereby making DRM impossible. An actual open source library that would decrypt the DRM content would be even worse, because you could just recompile it to drop the decrypted info to the disk. No messing with drivers required.
Oh no, this is great. You can remove windows drm with ease, just run drmbg then FairUse4Wm, and the drm is history. Why they would use it when its so trivial to reverse is a puzzler to be sure.
It seems that you are not so competent at providing the one service you have been given a virtual monopoly to provide so how do you think you ould be able to compete with other firms offering the same downloadable content like I dont know iTunes, Netflix (maybe not in canada as yet), CBC etc.
"We're hoping that one day Microsoft, Apple, the content owners and video sites like ours will have a big group hug and we can all share content. Until that day comes, all video content is delivered to you wrapped with Digital Rights Management (DRM).... Bell Video Store is required by the content owners to put DRM on every video."
Wouldn't it make more sense for all *content delivery services* to have a group hug refusing to deliver content with DRM?
Wouldn't it make more sense for all *content delivery services* to have a group hug refusing to deliver content with DRM?
..and then file for bankruptcy?
The point of their business is to deliver content. The video streaming industry isnt anywhere big enough for them to have any leverage at all on the content owners. If there were big profits for the content owners here, they would simply set up their own services (and still use DRM.)
Only ITunes has gotten away with using leverage on the content owners, but only because of their massive existing user base willing to throw money at them.
I see a two issues with Bell Canada. First, this so-called Traffic Shaping is really a way to artificially screw up what would otherwise be a nicely working system. Who are they to dictate what traffic gets priority? Secondly, on the issue of using DRM, I think Steve Jobs put it nicely in his open paper about DRM-less music being sold on iTunes. Turns out that all this hoopla about piracy that caused the invention of DRM is over-exaggerated and some big businesses are agreeing with him. After all, if piracy were as large a problem as many would like us to believe, then how come iTunes is making Apple boatloads of money? I think Bell Canada would be wise to stop the traffic shaping and do something to support Linux and Mac. Otherwise they are really limiting themselves to that portion of the market that doesn't care about P2P and doesn't use Macs or Linux. Just my two cents on the whole matter.
I'm taking bets on how long it'll take them before they consider p2p distribution after they use a million gigabytes of bandwidth and it costs them a lot of whatever money they use in Canada...dollars still I think. So yeah, large file download services are kinda expensive which is why MMO patches and Linux images are p2p. *gasp* they use p2p legitamately? Witches! Burn them!
Oookay, you sure that's your definitive answer? Just asking, 'cause it's a pretty dumb one. Their service will obviously running on their servers which will obviously be located in their network. They won't send themselves a bandwidth bill for that since, well, suing themselves for not paying would be pretty dumb and you don't send invoices if you're not going to collect, eh?
Now there may be some costs for the actual servers, but we're talking the easiest kind of data to distribute here -- predictable, lin
75% percent of the portable media player market is Apple's iPod. 75%. Any online store that prevents their target demographic from transferring their videos and music to the overwhelming media player of choice is choosing failure as a business plan. Bell has chosen failure. Microsoft's business plans are not in the best interest's of consumers or even business partners. Surely the latest MSN license server fiasco and the Play For Sure Zune betrayal are painfully evident lessons in who not to partner with when setting up a media distribution shop.
Let me see if I understand this right... they're getting ready to open up their own video store, at the same time they are starting to deliberately degrade the performance of other content providers their customers are using which are using P2P to distribute?
That's gotta be covered under some anticompetitive law somewhere? "We're going to start selling you a product, while at the same time sabotaging our competition's product, to make sure you buy ours instead."
This surprises you? Try thinking a couple years into the future by looking back a bit. 5 yrs ago, how large was the average image size (kb) you sent by e-mail to a friend? Now look at the same image size (mb) today...
So, multiply that by x number of frames for a movie (not accounting for compression) and think what happens in 5 yrs when you want to watch TV over the internet because that is the only way to get the selection/services/features you want or are accustomed to...
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday May 23 2008, @06:32AM (#23515680)
It all makes sense now. Bell Canada is the Company that orchestrated Salem-style witch hunts against mom & pop brick & mortar satellite TV shops prior to launching their ExpressVu service. Even before they managed to lobby a dictatorship-style law forbidding foreign satellite service, they were orchestrating raids against their future competitors. The bandwidth throttling is just a modern day version of their Monopoly status abuse.
This raises something that I've been thinking about for a while. There are two different kinds of network manipulation that ISPs can do and I think that it is important to make a distinction between them. They are:
1) Filtering/modifying/shaping traffic based on type (protocol), but not looking at source or destination. For example, giving streaming video priority over email.
2) Filtering/etc traffic based on source and/or destination. For example, giving streaming video from BellVideoLand priority over video from Youtube.
I think that ISPs can possibly make a case justifying the first type, based on protocol, on the basis of network management.
But the second, based on source, is just evil.
I think that we need to be careful to not lump both of these types under the single crusade of "net neutrality". I think that the term net neutrality should be reserved for source based filtering.
Just switch to TekSavvy. They're an ISP that believes in network neutrality, they've even organized a rally on parliament hill for next week. Prices beat Bell too.
Yes, that's what I think each time I hear about ISP's misconduct.
But if I remember correctly, Comcast or some other big ISP was enforcing their throttling on smaller ISP's traffic because they were the ones ultimately carrying it; the smaller ISPs were just detailers for the big one.
Do we have the problem here? Also, is there an equivalent of TekSavvy in the US?
TekSavvy does use Bell's last-mile network and as a result has been throttled recently, the CRTC (government is regulator) is investigating and may rule the practice illegal. That's also what has lead TekSavvy to organize the rally for network neutrality.
On top of this, it is possible if you've made Bell-Sympatico's blacklist and have had your service cut off, (bandwidth abusers), you may currently be denied the ability to sign up with a third party provider such as TekSavvy.
That takes care of the competition.
See Ottawa Gal's article on the present situation as she has researched it at Bell in this article [p2pnet.net]. It covers portions of the Acceptible Use Policy employed by Bell-Sympatico, including a letter of abuse, and some other outrageous information.
I am with a small DSL player like Teksavvy. These smaller players are great. They offer lower rates and MUCH BETTER customer service. I have no idea why anyone stays with Bell for DSL.
Teksavvy is in the lead for customer service and standing up to Bell, but it does little good, unless they win, because all DSL sucks now that Bell is throttling the last mile for everyone. (BT runs at about 20kB/s during waking hours, but full bandwidth is there for web and presumably Bells competing services).
I seriously doubt this throttling on the last mile of the competition is necessary, but once Bell throttled it's own customers (more likely to contain back end internet bandwidth than last mile bandwidth) it was losing them to the competition, so they throttled the competition.
The particularly heinous parts of this, is that the small DSL player pay $20/month to Bell for the last mile connnection, a last mile monopoly of twisted pair that was largely granted by Canadian citizens.
Bell is largely attempting to eliminate the competition.Users seemingly have little recourse, but we have one.
Bell is pervasive, you might not even be able to complain about DSL if they aren't your provider, but Bells pervasiveness is their weakness as well as strength.
Cancel your DSL and move to Cable. Tell your provider why. This will deny bell revenues and may give small players ammunition in their legal action against Bell. True the Cable side of the duopoly are no angels either but the throttling is no near as restrictive, and it cuts off any revenue to Bell.
Cancel any Bell long distance plans.
Cancel you landline and switch to Voip.
Cancel your Bell ExpressVu Satellite TV.
Cancel you Bell cell phone (or any provider reseslling the service).
Basically become Bell free, on every cancellation tell them why.
I have started the transition. In a month I will be entirely Bell free! I will no longer feel dirty know my money is funding these monopolistic pigs with hideous service.
It is a case of choosing the lesser of evils, and in this case that is cable. I get to drop all of Bell and tell them why. As a bonus my throughput will probably quadruple (DSL is 1.5mb/s where I am) Rogers throttling doesn't appear as choking as Bells. There is nothing to stop me from switching back to DSL in a few months if Rogers annoys me and the 3rd party DSL situation improves. Or maybe looking into a 3rd party wireless option.
I realize this may hurt tekSavvy and other small DSL players, but it is the
There is a cable reseller, CIA/3Web/Cybersurf. They offer very little customer service and as a result their "service" is cheaper than Rogers. A nice side effect is that they don't have stuff to enforce any traffic limits. And the connection is constant 8Mbit/s. Of course, Rogers can stop this at any time, because the last mile is under their control.
Yes, and except for the ultralight 2 GB cap, they all seem pretty reasonable. They are at least telling you what they are, and presenting the pricing scheme for going over the cap. 60 GB is quite a lot of content. I could download a movie every day and still not go over. It wouldn't be a DVD ISO file, or BluRay, but the H.264 rips come in under 1 GB and look pretty good to me.
If you're with Teksavvy, here's a little trick to get around the Bell traffic shaping boxes. If you use multilink PPP packets, they will leave your traffic alone, even if you only have one DSL line. In Windows, you can enable MLPPP by simply going into your connection properties, in the Networking tab. Click the Settings button for PPPoE, then check the "Enable multi-link for single link connections". Reconnect and voilà, no more traffic shaping! To do it in linux, simply modify your ppp config file to
Not that I know of, closest thing I've heard of down there is Speakeasy, but I'm guessing you've heard of them too.
TekSavvy is however considering an expansion into the US. I noticed the CEO (Rocky) asking questions about it on Broadband Reports. You could let them know you want to see it, if they knew there was demand might speed them up. Just send an e-mail or post on their Broadband Reports forum, the TekSavvy staff are always in that forum.
A good connection to the Internet and a way to connect to your subscribers.
The reason why so many smaller ISPs are in trouble is that they could not invest in their own DSLAMS as Bell has been quick build new cabinets, which are not required to be unbundled.
The exchange connects to cabinets which connects to people's houses. However the law only forces the exchanges to be unbundled (what a nice loophole). Also cabinets will reach much fewer people then exchanges.
On the other hand, a link between a cabinet and an exchange can be fiber, while between the cabinet and the customers can still be copper, reducing the reliance on copper.
Unfortunately, fiber can't carry a DSL signal.
Also here in Montreal, the only viable broadband alternative is Videotron (owned by Quebecor) which is the only major Canadian ISP not to fight requests for subscriber's information.
Videotron even stated publicly that they would comply with any request for subscriber info.
You could also ditch Bell and go with a different ISP, at least with that Bell would get less money from you.
I've already canceled 1 phone line and 1 adsl service with a different ISP. Once my Bell ExpressVu contract runs out, that too will go.
Here's one, Bell - strip the DRM and present the video using an open standard. Content provider doesn't like it? Well, as a big distribution channel, you might just have a bit of leverage with them to, you know, SERVE YOUR CUSTOMERS BETTER.
The content providers ARE their customers where this service is concerned, we the consuming audience are the product BEll Canada they are selling to the provider.;)
can traffic shaping be proved in court? (Score:5, Interesting)
they will probably allege the slow download is because of net traffic, spam, etc.
transparent bridges for traffic shaping are very hard to detect
Re:can traffic shaping be proved in court? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Use this: (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:can traffic shaping be proved in court? (Score:5, Informative)
http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/ [luxik.cdi.cz]
Parent
Re:can traffic shaping be proved in court? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:can traffic shaping be proved in court? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Conflict of interest... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, I'm just a little jaded. I used to work
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, their packet sniffers will interpret all these small upstream connections as P2P and reply with forged "Thank you for your feedback" pages.
Silly DRM trix are for kids (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Put it on iTunes or wind up like all the "Plays For Sure" suckers did. Is there a supportable, platform agnostic DRM available for the movie industry?
No there isn't, because FOSS OS users don't want DRM to begin with - which is a noble cause but, of course, also prohibits them from playing nice with The Man until the revolution finally comes. Which is most likely a very negligible loss, but you really shouldn't whine about not being able to watch DRM'd movies on Linux, because it's a feature, not a bug.
Re:Silly DRM trix are for kids (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
drmbg for the win (Score:5, Informative)
Why they would use it when its so trivial to reverse is a puzzler to be sure.
Parent
My draft feedback for Bell (Score:2)
It seems that you are not so competent at providing the one service you have been given a virtual monopoly to provide so how do you think you ould be able to compete with other firms offering the same downloadable content like I dont know iTunes, Netflix (maybe not in canada as yet), CBC etc.
Regards,
Someone who would never use Bell
Group hug? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't it make more sense for all *content delivery services* to have a group hug refusing to deliver content with DRM?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't it make more sense for all *content delivery services* to have a group hug refusing to deliver content with DRM?
The point of their business is to deliver content. The video streaming industry isnt anywhere big enough for them to have any leverage at all on the content owners. If there were big profits for the content owners here, they would simply set up their own services (and still use DRM.)
Only ITunes has gotten away with using leverage on the content owners, but only because of their massive existing user base willing to throw money at them.
It's clear why they shape P2P traffic: (Score:3, Insightful)
*collective duuuuuuuhhhhh*
Two issues with Bell Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm taking bets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their service will obviously running on their servers which will obviously be located in their network. They won't send themselves a bandwidth bill for that since, well, suing themselves for not paying would be pretty dumb and you don't send invoices if you're not going to collect, eh?
Now there may be some costs for the actual servers, but we're talking the easiest kind of data to distribute here -- predictable, lin
A Future Dismal Failure... (Score:5, Insightful)
They only carry 2 movies though, (Score:5, Funny)
Error - Unknown Browser Type (Score:2)
I find myself unsurprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this can't be legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's gotta be covered under some anticompetitive law somewhere? "We're going to start selling you a product, while at the same time sabotaging our competition's product, to make sure you buy ours instead."
Re: (Score:2)
So, multiply that by x number of frames for a movie (not accounting for compression) and think what happens in 5 yrs when you want to watch TV over the internet because that is the only way to get the selection/services/features you want or are accustomed to...
Right... I ask again, what p
And the puzzle is solved... (Score:4, Insightful)
Two different definitions of net neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Filtering/modifying/shaping traffic based on type (protocol), but not looking at source or destination. For example, giving streaming video priority over email.
2) Filtering/etc traffic based on source and/or destination. For example, giving streaming video from BellVideoLand priority over video from Youtube.
I think that ISPs can possibly make a case justifying the first type, based on protocol, on the basis of network management.
But the second, based on source, is just evil.
I think that we need to be careful to not lump both of these types under the single crusade of "net neutrality". I think that the term net neutrality should be reserved for source based filtering.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gouging. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's start our own... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to attend the rally, see http://www.netneutralityrally.ca/ [netneutralityrally.ca] .
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But if I remember correctly, Comcast or some other big ISP was enforcing their throttling on smaller ISP's traffic because they were the ones ultimately carrying it; the smaller ISPs were just detailers for the big one.
Do we have the problem here? Also, is there an equivalent of TekSavvy in the US?
Re:Let's start our own... (Score:5, Informative)
As for their US equivalent, you may want to see my above post: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=561862&cid=23514422 [slashdot.org] . Basically they're considering expanding to the US, let them know you want it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That takes care of the competition.
See Ottawa Gal's article on the present situation as she has researched it at Bell in this article [p2pnet.net]. It covers portions of the Acceptible Use Policy employed by Bell-Sympatico, including a letter of abuse, and some other outrageous information.
One real recourse against Bell. (Score:5, Informative)
Teksavvy is in the lead for customer service and standing up to Bell, but it does little good, unless they win, because all DSL sucks now that Bell is throttling the last mile for everyone. (BT runs at about 20kB/s during waking hours, but full bandwidth is there for web and presumably Bells competing services).
I seriously doubt this throttling on the last mile of the competition is necessary, but once Bell throttled it's own customers (more likely to contain back end internet bandwidth than last mile bandwidth) it was losing them to the competition, so they throttled the competition.
The particularly heinous parts of this, is that the small DSL player pay $20/month to Bell for the last mile connnection, a last mile monopoly of twisted pair that was largely granted by Canadian citizens.
Bell is largely attempting to eliminate the competition.Users seemingly have little recourse, but we have one.
Bell is pervasive, you might not even be able to complain about DSL if they aren't your provider, but Bells pervasiveness is their weakness as well as strength.
Cancel your DSL and move to Cable. Tell your provider why. This will deny bell revenues and may give small players ammunition in their legal action against Bell. True the Cable side of the duopoly are no angels either but the throttling is no near as restrictive, and it cuts off any revenue to Bell.
Cancel any Bell long distance plans.
Cancel you landline and switch to Voip.
Cancel your Bell ExpressVu Satellite TV.
Cancel you Bell cell phone (or any provider reseslling the service).
Basically become Bell free, on every cancellation tell them why.
I have started the transition. In a month I will be entirely Bell free! I will no longer feel dirty know my money is funding these monopolistic pigs with hideous service.
Parent
Cable? Are you nuts?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Teksavvy doesn't provide internet over cable. Rogers and Shaw have a tighter grip on their network than Bell has on the phone lines.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing to stop me from switching back to DSL in a few months if Rogers annoys me and the 3rd party DSL situation improves. Or maybe looking into a 3rd party wireless option.
I realize this may hurt tekSavvy and other small DSL players, but it is the
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Rogers can stop this at any time, because the last mile is under their control.
Rogers Bandwidth Caps (2008) (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Yahoo!_Hi-Speed_Internet [wikipedia.org]
http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=internetLanding_1_1&internetLanding_1_1_actionOverride=%2Fportlets%2Fconsumer%2Finternet%2FinternetLanding%2FcheckServiceabilityPostalCode [rogers.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
TekSavvy is however considering an expansion into the US. I noticed the CEO (Rocky) asking questions about it on Broadband Reports. You could let them know you want to see it, if they knew there was demand might speed them up. Just send an e-mail or post on their Broadband Reports forum, the TekSavvy staff are always in that forum.
Re:Let's start our own... (Score:4, Informative)
The reason why so many smaller ISPs are in trouble is that they could not invest in their own DSLAMS as Bell has been quick build new cabinets, which are not required to be unbundled.
The exchange connects to cabinets which connects to people's houses. However the law only forces the exchanges to be unbundled (what a nice loophole). Also cabinets will reach much fewer people then exchanges.
On the other hand, a link between a cabinet and an exchange can be fiber, while between the cabinet and the customers can still be copper, reducing the reliance on copper.
Unfortunately, fiber can't carry a DSL signal.
Also here in Montreal, the only viable broadband alternative is Videotron (owned by Quebecor) which is the only major Canadian ISP not to fight requests for subscriber's information.
Videotron even stated publicly that they would comply with any request for subscriber info.
You could also ditch Bell and go with a different ISP, at least with that Bell would get less money from you.
I've already canceled 1 phone line and 1 adsl service with a different ISP. Once my Bell ExpressVu contract runs out, that too will go.
Parent
Re:Bell "Support" for Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
The content providers ARE their customers where this service is concerned, we the consuming audience are the product BEll Canada they are selling to the provider.
Parent