Bell Canada Launches Its Own Online Video Store 106
rsax writes "Bell Canada recently announced that it is launching a downloadable video store just as it is caught up in a government inquiry into its traffic-shaping practices. Some consider this a conflict of interest since several content providers were in the process of distributing TV shows using P2P technology before the Bell throttling issue started getting media coverage. Bell's FAQ states that it is not available for Mac users right now (and not Linux either of course) because they are using Windows Media DRM. They do, however, invite feedback on their site."
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Use this: (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:can traffic shaping be proved in court? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:can traffic shaping be proved in court? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Net traffic and spam generally only delay transmission time.
A disproportionate number of dropped packets and reset connections often indicates throttling.
If you use Azureus, there is a plugin (Network Status Monitor) that monitors these things in order to determine how your ISP is handling P2P traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Conflict of interest... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, I'm just a little jaded. I used to work
Re: (Score:2)
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:1, Troll)
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)
drmbg for the win (Score:5, Informative)
Why they would use it when its so trivial to reverse is a puzzler to be sure.
Let's start our own... (Score:1)
At first they (Bell) said it was because our Canadian dollar then was way below the US dollar. But even at parity or even greater value than the US currency, I still pay that same amount. What's going on here?
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] .
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: (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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Check them out. A friend used to work for them and did all their installations, so I know a little about their upgrade, but as with anything, it really depends on where on the island you are.
Couldn't hurt to call.
Re: (Score:1)
The rest of the ADSL is dependant on Bell, and they "Cannot guarantee any download speed anymore"
As I'm actually in Laval...
FAIL (Score:1, Interesting)
One thing that Bell doesnt understand is that nearly all of its subscribers know how to get non drmed content for free... and those are the ones that havnt left bell due to the bandwidth cap for a 3rd party reseller with an unlimited cap still.
Bell "Support" for Mac (Score:1)
According to their FAQ Apple doesn't support the right kind of DRM, so they have no option re platform. They ask for "ideas on how we can get MAC and PC to play nice together."
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.
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.
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
Re: (Score:1)
Teksavvy all the way.
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*
/i/ (Score:1)
The thousand nerds of the Slashdot Empire will descend on you! Their flames will blot out the internet!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Linear protocols like http or ftp are perfectly suited for streaming because they obtain the content the way you want to consume it: Starting at point x, progressing towards the end.
P2P protocols are, by their very nature, based in small blocks so lots of slow peers can replicate sets of files quickly amongst each ot
Re: (Score:2)
basically, start streaming from server, then download other pieces from peers, with nearer pieces having higher priority. if an adequately fast peer with a needed-right-now piece cannot be found, it would be downloaded from the server.
obviously, BT is not the appropriate protocol for this, but creating such a system would be an interesting idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A: Streaming servers near the central network, exclusively server-to-client traffic. Some network strain at the edge of the centre, little processing power required in both servers and routing equipment due to single, predictable streams. Little last-mile strain, single, easy-to-shape stream. Little to no upstream usage fr
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs have to support the whole network from the server on which the content lies down to the customers. Spreading downloads to a P2P model doesn't l
Re: (Score:2)
A Future Dismal Failure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They only carry 2 movies though, (Score:5, Funny)
Error - Unknown Browser Type (Score:2)
I find myself unsurprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
No feed back limit? (Score:1, Funny)
Who didn't see this coming? (Score:2)
Of course they want to shape
Re: (Score:1)