# Bell capping its wholesalers to 60GB (CRTC issue)



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

I received the following from my DSL provider Teksavvy today.

_Dear Valued Customer,

We are writing to you today as many activities are underway to shape/reshape
Internet use as you all know it. Over the last year some of you have been
made aware and/or have seen activities on throttling in the news or in your
daily lives. Another proceeding relating to the Internet in Canada required
Telecom providers (Bell/Telus/etc.) to provide ISPs with wholesale service
speeds that match those that they offer to their own retail customers.
Specifically, Bell has been directed by the CRTC to provide matching speeds
which would allow us all to have more flexibility in our day to day online
requirements. Instead of adhering to these directives, Bell decided to take
this issue to the federal Cabinet and at the same time file a tariff
application with the CRTC proposing to introduce Usage Based Billing (UBB)
on its wholesale customer accounts.

What does this mean for you, the consumer?

Bell provides TekSavvy with last mile, wholesale DSL access services, which
TekSavvy uses to provide you with your Internet access. If Bell were to be
allowed to introduce UBB on this service, a cap of 60GB would be imposed on
all of its users, with very heavy penalties per Gigabyte afterwards
(multiple times more than our current per Gigabyte rate of $0.25/GB on
overages). This would inherently all but remove Unlimited internet services
in Ontario/Quebec and potentially cause large increases in internet costs
from month to month.

If you'd like to make your comments/concerns known about what Bell is
attempting to do, please do so here:

Submit a telecom-related request

Select the word "Tariff" from the drop down list.

Add the following in Subject Line "File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell
Canada - TN 7181" and make your thoughts known!

The deadline for filing your comments is today at midnight, so hurry!

Regards,

Rocky


Rocky Gaudrault
Chief Executive Officer
TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
330 Richmond Street, Suite 205
Chatham, ON, N7M 1P7
Customer Service: 877-779-1575
URL: TekSavvy Solutions Inc_

My reply to the CRTC

_The internet has become a main source of entertainment for the 
purchase of music, movies, and the streaming of live video from news 
sources around the world. 60 GB is quickly becoming a small amount of 
data, just as our requirements for storage have evolved from floppy 
disks, to CD, to DVD, and now Dual Layer DVD's of over 8 
Gigabytes.That is an increase of 1 million times in a little over 15 
years.
We have seen the recent demise of many newspapers around the world, 
and many television networks are putting more content online. By 
reducing, throttling and capping the consumers access to data, it will 
inhibit the growth of the web, and deny access to better quality 
sources of information and media. If anything, data caps should be 
increasing to keep up with the ever expanding content available.
Capping data is essentially denying access to information to everyone 
except those who can pay. This is fundamentally prejudicial and 
creates different rights for different income levels. As a Canadian, I 
believe that is wrong._

I also sent this to my MP David Sweet, and suggested that there is no other instance in Canada, where we would allow discrimination like this. 60GB may sound like a great deal now, but just wait. In no time, Bell will have a stranglehold on information and only the rich will have access to the buffet table. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Thanks for getting this ball going Carl.

The warning came a bit late... I've received the e-mail too, just now.

Going to have to write my MP and others.

If some come up with good idea's I'd love to borrow some concepts. I'll be writing late tonight after a meeting so I will not be thinking too clearly. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Bell's move is complete bull****, and cripples the opportunity for non-Bell companies to offer IPTV, VOIP, and many other services that rely on the internet - not to mention castrating the amount you can download, browse, email, etc. without getting charged insane fees.

What makes this even more galling is that Bell isn't even providing the end transit, just the transit between the modem and the ISP.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

If you've read my rants regarding service contracts and EULAs, you'll know I generally very anti-corporate. This is one of the few corporation vs. the little guy things where I actually side with the corporation. Opening up telecommunication to all carriers was a mistake, IMO.

The big guys are the ones who build that infrastructure over time that allows those networks to exist, I don't believe their competitors should have been able to just waltz in and demand the same thing.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

but didn't the government really give them a number of hand outs and sweet deals to "build that infrastructure"?


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

I got this notice yesterday too and filed my complaint in the appropriate place. It's total BS that Bell would be allowed to kill their competition like this -- talk about anti-competitive. It's basically saying "This is the cap we have on our customers and therefore you can no longer compete with us on that front because we're now going to enforcing these caps on your customers too for the good of the network."

Bell is EVIL and I've done everything I can to get away from them and their services over the last couple of years, but each time I manage to think I'm Bell free they come along and do something like this to assert their non-competitive and domineering of the telecommunications industry in Canada once again.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2009)

bsenka said:


> If you've read my rants regarding service contracts and EULAs, you'll know I generally very anti-corporate. This is one of the few corporation vs. the little guy things where I actually side with the corporation. Opening up telecommunication to all carriers was a mistake, IMO.
> 
> The big guys are the ones who build that infrastructure over time that allows those networks to exist, I don't believe their competitors should have been able to just waltz in and demand the same thing.


In any other industry what Bell is trying to do here is not allowed; it is regulated and called price fixing. Bell sells wholesale services to their clients, and then pull the rug out from under them mid contract, claiming that they need to do this because if they don't it will tax their infrastructure. If this were any other business they would have to suck it up and supply what they have apparently (over)sold to their wholesale clients.

In the case of TekSavvvy they are buying end point connectivity ... not all the stops along the way -- they run all their own networking infrastructure and are not just reselling bell DSL accounts, bell is merely the provider giving them the last hop connectivity to the internet. This move by Bell will basically kill the business models of most, if not all, of Bell's competition in the ISP market.

The biggest issue with this is that companies like TekSavvy have no choice to use anyone else for this type of service, Bell is THE monopoly and Bell making a move like this just asserts their monopolistic hold on this industry. If TekSavvy and other similar ISP's had the choice to simply use another provider I wouldn't be as opposed, but they have no choice in the matter at all.

While you're entitled to your opinion, I can't agree with this one


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bsenka said:


> If you've read my rants regarding service contracts and EULAs, you'll know I generally very anti-corporate. This is one of the few corporation vs. the little guy things where I actually side with the corporation. Opening up telecommunication to all carriers was a mistake, IMO.
> 
> The big guys are the ones who build that infrastructure over time that allows those networks to exist, I don't believe their competitors should have been able to just waltz in and demand the same thing.


I agree - but then I do not think that the Nation has been served well by allowing Corporate Americanism to control the Internet. Bell should have remained a telephone company, just like the cable companies should have remained cable companies - while a proper Internet backbone was constructed by technology companies that were neither telephone or cable companies.

We did have a time when we could have had real Internet in this country, rather than this endless tomfoolery, and using the Internet for things it is just not good for, or the endless advertising lies that are allowed, where these companies continue to advertise that one can watch video and movies on "the Internet" while complaining about and throttling the very protocols that deliver what they advertise. We also continue to fester with obsolete technologies like DSL or Cable modems - when it has been clear for the past thirty years that Fiber Optic is the only way to go, and that the only place where one can get real Internet in this country is in Goderich (where they have Fiber Optic).

I suppose I have no complaint, since I still have dial-up because none of the "providers" have "Internet" in this neighbourhood - not because of some distance from the CO or anything like that - but because of the endless litigation over the telephone poles, of which we have two sets on this side of the street (one out front, one in the back).

I know a lot of people that want to make a change, since Bell has clearly been ripping people off. For instance, my girlfriend's rates were jacked up like crazy, from $19 per month to $29 per month, and the modem "rental" (you can't own your own) was jacked up by another $3 per month. Not only that, but service has been cut back, and throttling is killing the speed of downloading e-mail during regular daytime hours. Not to mention that "overuse" charges amount to corporate sodomy.

Then I see this, where an "independent" like Teksavvy, of which we were considering, will be throttled and capped like crazy, meaning that we would have to have at least three Teksavvy accounts, perhaps more, to do all of the things we do on a regular basis now. Our Government will probably allow this corporate rip-off because everyone knows that Bell needs even more money to fulfill their unnatural thirst for greed.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

I'd rather have a cap on all traffic than throttling based on types of traffic. While the cap may be perceived as too low by some, it seems pretty fair to me that if you use more of a service, then you should pay more. It does cost Bell to provide Internet, and if their bandwidth fills up, then they have to pay to build more infrastructure. It only makes sense that the heavy users pay more for that expansion.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Then they shouldn't be promoting things like VOIP and streaming video - which wallop bandwidth, nor should they be touting the ability to listen to music or watch movies when they are shutting the tap off of actually doing those things. Nor should they be trying to lever the independent ISPs that have better service all around. If their bandwidth is really in peril - they should get out of the game and let those who can provide the access do just that.

If they throttle torrents - then they should have to throttle all other traffic, because picking on one protocol to throttle over all others is discriminatory. They are service providers - not cops nor regulators, and they shouldn't be allowed to attack their "competition" in anti-competitive ways by using their monopoly to kill off competition which is elite in all respects.

It is time for this country to decide on whether or not we want real Internet - and once we decide upon it, it is time to make it in the same way utilities are, where everyone can benefit from a fair infrastructure and with fair access to all.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Then they shouldn't be promoting things like VOIP and streaming video - which wallop bandwidth, nor should they be touting the ability to listen to music or watch movies when they are shutting the tap off of actually doing those things.


That's a slight exaggeration. I do all of the above save for VOIP and I've never exceeded my 60GB/month bandwidth cap. That's like saying BMW shouldn't promote their $150,000 vehicles because most people can't afford them. It doesn't quite work that way.

The unusual users who use excessive amounts of bandwidth monthly (200GB+) should be expected to pay more, absolutely. It's only fair. This rule of thinking doesn't just apply to Bell -- it applies to practically any service from any company. If you want more, better, etc., you pay more. This is hardly new news.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

Lars said:


> That's a slight exaggeration. I do all of the above save for VOIP and I've never exceeded my 60GB/month bandwidth cap. That's like saying BMW shouldn't promote their $150,000 vehicles because most people can't afford them. It doesn't quite work that way.
> 
> The unusual users who use excessive amounts of bandwidth monthly (200GB+) should be expected to pay more, absolutely. It's only fair. This rule of thinking doesn't just apply to Bell -- it applies to practically any service from any company. If you want more, better, etc., you pay more. This is hardly new news.


Lars, I 100% agree!!!

I have Sympatico, with 60GB limit, and I have NEVER gone over... I DO use VOIP, download songs (albums even) as well as several AppleTV HD movies a month plus work from home!! (and there are 2 others in the house who share the connection)... (all for $40 a month)...

I think 60GB is totally reasonable / month... and if you need more, you should pay for it!


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

hayesk said:


> I'd rather have a cap on all traffic than throttling based on types of traffic. While the cap may be perceived as too low by some, it seems pretty fair to me that if you use more of a service, then you should pay more. It does cost Bell to provide Internet, and if their bandwidth fills up, then they have to pay to build more infrastructure. It only makes sense that the heavy users pay more for that expansion.


But companies like TekSavvy are buying the network bandwidth from Bell to support their 200 GB and unlimited customers. Bell has been supplying this without any problem other then their illegitimate throttling of torrent users. Bell's move is trying to cut off competition on two fronts: make all the secondary ISP's offer as poor service (value for money) as they do and prevent the customers from using other streaming video suppliers. Bell wants to get into streaming video, having their potential customers go to cheaper better suppliers is not in their best interest. How to do that? Limit customers to 60 GB, but allow Bell customers unlimited use when using Bell's media servers.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

More from the CBC.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Carl said:


> Dear Valued Customer,
> 
> ...If Bell were to be allowed to introduce UBB on this service, a cap of 60GB would be imposed on all of its users, with very heavy penalties per Gigabyte afterwards
> (multiple times more than our current per Gigabyte rate of $0.25/GB on
> ...


Does Rocky think that Bell owns the internet in Ontario and Quebec??!!! There is this thing called *cable* which does a very good job of providing internet access. 

I am with Videotron in Quebec and they offer Unlimited usage plans and there is no indication that this will change. Of course you pay more for them, why wouldn't you?

Videotron has some of the best rates in all of Canada and offers 6 variations on speed and usage packages for the consumer and 5 for businesses. Believe me you can find what you need at a price you are willing to pay. Rocky needs to get his facts right before he resorts to scare tactics like this.

(Also Rocky needs to have someone proof read his letters for him before they go out. "This would *inherently* all but remove..." Inherently?? Ummh, not the right word, essentially yes, but not inherently. )


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Lars said:


> That's a slight exaggeration. I do all of the above save for VOIP and I've never exceeded my 60GB/month bandwidth cap. That's like saying BMW shouldn't promote their $150,000 vehicles because most people can't afford them. It doesn't quite work that way.
> 
> The unusual users who use excessive amounts of bandwidth monthly (200GB+) should be expected to pay more, absolutely. It's only fair. This rule of thinking doesn't just apply to Bell -- it applies to practically any service from any company. If you want more, better, etc., you pay more. This is hardly new news.


60GB per month is pretty easy to use up, since a DVD quality movie will be around 4GB or so, then add in some television shows (like The Office with the webisodes), and add in Internet Radio and a few software updates, and the cap is entirely blown. And it will only get worse, since people will want HD quality movies which use even more capacity, followed by Blu-Ray quality movies.

It all comes down to the false advertising, contract breaking and other nonsense Bell is engaged in. They either decide they will provide Internet, and I am talking the real Internet - or get out of the game. Their "plans" are nonsense - where one pays heap of cash for something that is ultimately not up to snuff. And because their Stupidpatico service is among the worst services available at the highest dollar - they want to take it out on other providers that have superior plans, superior pricing, superior service, and also - providers that aren't all Microsoft Live for Vista Ultimate Premium Professional Only, where your e-mail gets trashed by their servers on a regular basis because of "technical difficulties".

This is a much bigger question than just Bell going Ballmer on their customers and competitors - it has to do with the nature of the network itself. If we are to "allow" the Internet to carry streaming music, streaming video, and be the prime mover of software and software upgrades - then low caps are absurd; and is even more absurd when the very company that wants to throttle and cap is the very company that spent millions on their ad campaigns selling people on the virtues of those exact items that suck up bandwidth.

If you had asked be if 60GB was "fair" two years ago, I'd say, sure, it is quite ample - but then things have become even larger, with HD video that is double the space requirements of DVD quality, and Blu-Ray that is double that once again. And two years ago, "Internet Radio" was just a sad heap of garbage, featuring the lowest quality possible - but that has changed, and considering the ultimate decline of broadcasters, Internet Radio has emerged as a potentially potent force.

I think it is high time for Bell to stop blaming torrents - it is they who promised the world a heap of gold they can not produce. They have not bothered to go fiber optic, a technology that should have been adopted twenty years ago, and just want to score fast cash from their ever decreasing pool of "subscribers".

If there was a real alternative for a real telephone, I'd dump Bell in a second - because their malarkey doesn't end with abusing their Internet users, or even the other providers, but they abuse their phone users all of the time. For instance, in my case, I am prohibited from making a long distance call - at any rate - because they threatened to add a $10 per month charge that I would be forced to pay for a year because I refuse to subscribe to some "plan" when I rarely make LD calls, and if I do make an LD call, I don't care if I get a discount or not because I can't drive to Kincardine for the same cost as driving there for a coffee.

This is a real issue, and if out Government wasn't so effete - they'd bust up the monopoly and get some real competition going. It's time to kill off the Bell dinosaur and all of their obsolete and low quality offerings, and frequent threats issued to their customers...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> *If there was a real alternative for a real telephone, I'd dump Bell in a second - because their malarkey doesn't end with abusing their Internet users, or even the other providers, but they abuse their phone users all of the time.* For instance, in my case, I am prohibited from making a long distance call - at any rate - because they threatened to add a $10 per month charge that I would be forced to pay for a year because I refuse to subscribe to some "plan" when I rarely make LD calls, and if I do make an LD call, I don't care if I get a discount or not because I can't drive to Kincardine for the same cost as driving there for a coffee.


If you have cable there is an alternative to Bell. VOIP. I haven't had anything to do with Bell for about 5 years now (with Vonage). Don't miss their BS one little bit. My service with Vonage is every bit as good and better than it was with Bell and WAAYYY cheaper.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> If you have cable there is an alternative to Bell. VOIP. I haven't had anything to do with Bell for about 5 years now (with Vonage). Don't miss their BS one little bit. My service with Vonage is every bit as good and better than it was with Bell and WAAYYY cheaper.


Our cable company is trash - it goes down at least once a month, and they make Bell's overbilling look like nothing. Of course, if this neighbourhood had "high speed", their only plan is 10GB/month "combined upload and download", which means that I could watch two movies and perhaps read e-mail - or watch one movie and listen to five hours of music (six if I don't read e-mail).

Considering that free broadcast TV, over the air, involves about 250GB/month for a typical household using one TV that is not HD - I think the "caps" are just sad, and within a year, a full third of users will be ramming into their cap - and even worse in 2011 when broadcast TV is slated to end in Canada - forcing even more people to things like torrents in order to watch what for sixty years was free.

Bell should be prosecuted for false advertising, and their executives jailed for fraud with all of the other embezzlers and criminals...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Our cable company is trash - it goes down at least once a month, and they make Bell's overbilling look like nothing. Of course, if this neighbourhood had "high speed", their only plan is 10GB/month "combined upload and download", which means that I could watch two movies and perhaps read e-mail - or watch one movie and listen to five hours of music (six if I don't read e-mail).
> 
> Considering that free broadcast TV, over the air, involves about 250GB/month for a typical household using one TV that is not HD - I think the "caps" are just sad, and within a year, a full third of users will be ramming into their cap - and even worse in 2011 when broadcast TV is slated to end in Canada - forcing even more people to things like torrents in order to watch what for sixty years was free.
> 
> Bell should be prosecuted for false advertising, and their executives jailed for fraud with all of the other embezzlers and criminals...


That's too bad EP, we have great cable service, literally almost never down (maybe once or twice a year and if it is it is for less than an hour). I feel for you being stuck with Bell, the Mofos.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

If you've listened to Leo Laporte and the TWiT crew, you have probably heard them complain about the US carriers, such as Comcast, who are imposing caps. Comcast has a cap of 250GB per month and they complain, let alone the 60GB caps we have north of the border!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

no surprise... we provide High speed internet for our business clients for years.. some of the lines run through bell switches.. we have known for years how bad and criminal bell operates..

this year we decided after 8 years of suppling high speed internet, to do it ourselves rather than resell it - because one of our resellers was purchased by telus enough said.. so during this process we were switching clients over to us, but it is bell who does it no else is allowed to do the switch because they own the stations.. any how long story short..
they tried to steal clients from us, by delaying the switch and saying we were not ready or our switches at 151 front were not compatible... then they sent sales people over to our clients to bully them.. ( which is illegal according to CRTC ) so my clients who have been with us for over 15 years called to tell us what was happening.. we phone CRTC, they asked us to show them the bell paper work of a competitive pricing, i replied bell did not provide written paper pricing - they know they would get caught...

after weeks of bell being the ape in the matter they release the switch and we got all of our clients installed.

Yes they are criminal but nothing we can do... 60 GB - restriction we have had that in place since the beginning - 8 years ago... 60 Gbs is not that bad...


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

bgw said:


> More from the CBC.


Interesting article. I like the paragraph "Those hearings were set up following complaints from CAIP that Bell Canada is selectively slowing down or "throttling" internet traffic generated by peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing applications such as BitTorrent or "shaping" traffic to favour other applications over P2P in an effort to reduce network congestion."

Let's ask Bell a question. If BitTorrent traffic on the Bell network reduces to an 'acceptable' level but at the same time, streaming video from Bell sites increased to levels that are similar to currently 'unaccaptable' BitTorrent levels, would Bell throttle or shape this traffic?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I have to agree that the only option seems to be cable, although I'm not sure how Rogers stacks up... Videotron sounds OK.

I've got Shaw... went through a rough patch a couple of years ago that "almost" drove me away but I hung in because at the time here the only real other choice was Telus which impressed me less. 

They've got things together quite well now to the point where they are one of few big companies I would recommend to someone. In my package, which is a couple steps over the lowest entry level... I get 100GB per month, and 15mbps download speed which they just raised from 10mbps at no change in cost. The cost because it's bundled with my TV is $43/month. 

I really can't complain at this point in time... I haven't asked but I have received no notice that suggests anything will change toward the negative.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

I've been doing some more reading on the CRTC comment site (eConsultation) and thinking afterwards.
Here are my thoughts, feel free to comment:
1 - I am happy paying for internet, as it's a service that I require and enjoy
2 - I am happy to pay for usage, in the for of tiers. I cannot think of a good argument to counter this, as with most other services or goods, you pay for a quantity. If you go to a restaurant and don't see a sign saying free refills, you don't expect to get free refills.
3 - I am happy to pay for a speed of service.
4 - I am not happy when an ISP decides to throttle or play God with net neutrality. When I pay for usage and a speed, that's what I pay for. If I go over my usage, fine, I'll pay more. It's entirely my fault if I exceed my quota. Equally, I am not happy when my ISP choses for me how quickly or slowly I can reach my usage quota. If I reach the limit within 1 day, that should be of no concern to them.

Now I know there are many counter arguments to what I have written above, but I guess it's been written by a 'normal' internet user. I've gone over my 60GB limit once, only because I was hammering iTunes downloading HD content. Sure, due to bandwidth limits, the whole neighbourhood might suffer, but this is why ISPs offer tiers and will 'punish' those who exceed the tier limits through extra usage charges or ultimately, removing their internet service.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dreambird said:


> I have to agree that the only option seems to be cable, although I'm not sure how Rogers stacks up... Videotron sounds OK.
> 
> I've got Shaw...


Dreambird, sounds like your setup with Shaw is quite similar to Videotron. I have been on high speed cable since it first became available in our region back in 1999 I think it was.

There were definitely some growing pains along the way with reliability and such, but now they seem to have their act pretty much in order and have for several years.

As long as cable is available I personally would never go with highspeed phone internet. I have helped set up a couple of not so "techsavy" () friends with Bell High Speed and it is a pain in the a## to set up by comparison to cable. Also the service agents have gone through the Bell school of "how to be rude, ignorant and yet arrogant with your customers" training. 

The more people that flee from Bell all the better I say, they reap what they sow.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Same here Screature... I signed up with Shaw back in 1997 when they were starting up and were calling themselves "The Wave". It's been pretty much as you say... rough spots but now there's been a long spell of no trouble at all. 

I'm also impressed with the Security package they offer for free download to their customers, I have no idea how well it works as it's not available for Mac... but we don't really need any so comprehensive yet. It's called Shaw Secure but it's back by F-Secure which is the company whose anti-virus program I trusted my PC to until I switched in 2000 and they were top level then. I'd guess they still are as the Shaw uses that to handle spam and I have to say I'm rarely bothered anymore by it. It get's "cut of at the pass"... 

Also if I need a service call it's no charge... even if there is some tiny little part involved. Last time they gave me a power bar for behind the TV... all no charge. I have everything bundled with them... TV, Internet and Phone. The power bar I use for the computer is a better, bigger model, but for what their's does behind the TV it's great.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
It's clearly about Bell wanting to pave it's way to provide pay-for-tv service, by killing off at potential competition. First they want to throttle torrents - a technology adopted by a number of broadcasters as well as Universal Studios. Now they want to impose caps to kill off the streaming video, internet radio and VOIP traffic.

Not that any of this affects me - we still can't get High Speed in my neighbourhood because of the law suits and litigation over the telephone poles on my street, a three way fight between Cogeco, Bell and Horizon Utilities. Of course, there is satellite, but since I live within the domain of the NEC, I have to first apply for a permit, which could take up to three years to obtain if neighbours "object", and is just too much cash.

But I still think this is a royal scam. Telephone companies, cable tv companies, hydro companies - all of them should not be "providing Internet", but rather, Internet should be provided by actual Internet services on an infrastructure that is actually Internet. This involves adopting technology that is thirty years old, and rolling it out, as they are in Goderich, so that everyone has fair and equal access, if they want it, to real High Speed Internet.

I also think the advertizing scams should be ended, and that High Speed should mean actual High Speed, not "a bit faster than dial-up, or almost as fast as an old Centrex line". And the providers should not be in the business of "shaping traffic" or "selecting protocols", just as they shouldn't be prefering some operating systems or computer manufacturers over others.

It is less of a series of battles over trivialities, and more about the fact that this nation has no cohesive policy or plan on how to press the fast forward button. 

Caps and throttling can actually serve to impede progress, as these arbitrary limits can and will impede the chance that telecommuting will take hold in at least some fields. If we allow companies like Bell to dictate wheter or not I am allowed to exchange data with my friends via P2P (or whatever), then we have to allow Bell to dictate the use of VPN, perhaps restricting it to the hours that no one works.

Of course, if bandwidth is a real problem - then providers like Bell should embrace advanced protocols like torrents, since the torrent protocol mimics the actual actions of the Internet, and can easily be tailored and set to balance out bandwidth, and conserve network resources. And in real world tests, properly functioning torrents have been shown to have a minimal impact on bandwidth (since if the network is busy, the torrent throttles itself back, while stepping up when the network is quiet). It stands that most bandwdth is used by real time streaming video by far, followed more distantly by VOIP (which needs much less bandwidth but can't handle any latency).

Most of Bell's bandwidth is sucked back by their crummy Stupidpatico home page, that takes like a half minute to render on their high speed, and even more by their use of Microsoft Live For Windoze, as well as all of the streaming video and flash animations they push onto their users.

I, for one, would be more than happy to see a real Internet strategy and a real infrastructure emerge, but knowing the way our Government works, the usual perversion and corruption will continue...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Well, I must admit I was somewhat taken aback when Shaw announced they were going into the telephone business...  I signed up because it happens to make good economical sense for me... they have a package I need that I can't beat at Telus who had "screwed me over" on long distance just recently before I switched so I wasn' t happy with them anyway.

But then I was equally taken aback when Telus announced they were going into the TV business!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Everyone is doing everyone elses business these days - and no one is concentrating on being excellent or at least passable, i ntheir own business.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

What do you guys think of breaking Bell up into separate companies, where one is a not for profit infrastructure company? (I think the British have done this?) 

If Sympatico was competing with other ISP's on an equal basis (no interest in the infrastructure) I bet they would be against throttling and low caps as it would cut into their potential profits. Bell now has a vested interest in slowing other internet suppliers down so they can make room for their movie streaming service. Bell estimates they can make more money from streaming video to their customers then they can from providing straight internet service!

The ownership and infrastructure set up has caused Bell to behave in a logical way to make more money for itself but not work for the logical betterment of all. 

(I hope this makes sense?)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bgw said:


> What do you guys think of breaking Bell up into separate companies, where one is a not for profit infrastructure company? (I think the British have done this?)
> 
> If Sympatico was competing with other ISP's on an equal basis (no interest in the infrastructure) I bet they would be against throttling and low caps as it would cut into their potential profits. Bell now has a vested interest in slowing other internet suppliers down so they can make room for their movie streaming service. Bell estimates they can make more money from streaming video to their customers then they can from providing straight internet service!
> 
> ...



In order to do this they would have to be ruled to be in violation of the Competition Act, "Abuse of Dominant Position". The CRTC has already ruled that the "throttling" they are currently conducting doesn't constitute abuse because they do it to their own retail customers as well, so I think this idea would pretty much be a non-stater from a legal stand point.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

screature said:


> In order to do this they would have to be ruled to be in violation of the Competition Act, "Abuse of Dominant Position". The CRTC has already ruled that the "throttling" they are currently conducting doesn't constitute abuse because they do it to their own retail customers as well, so I think this idea would pretty much be a non-stater from a legal stand point.


I, actually, wasn't thinking of the legal point. More along the lines of business and societal benefits. What do you think on that point?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I just saw this thread for the first time.
A couple of thoughts came to mind immediately.

1. Techsavvy was really asleep at the switch here - they send the note to their customers on the very last day CRTC is accepting comments. I don't know off hand what the CRTC comment time frame is, but it's at least two weeks, probably longer.

2. The second point is that there are a number of alternatives - Bell doesn't really have a monopoly here as some claim.
Not only can I use cable, one can also use wireless in many locations or satellite.

3. And finally, 60 GB per month should be more than enough for the vast majority of the users. I'm currently subscribe to a 30 GB/month service - use the internet constantly all day, and I'm never even close to my limits.
But then again, I don't download movies, videos, things that gobble up bandwidth.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

krs said:


> I just saw this thread for the first time.
> A couple of thoughts came to mind immediately.
> 
> 1. Techsavvy was really asleep at the switch here - they send the note to their customers on the very last day CRTC is accepting comments. I don't know off hand what the CRTC comment time frame is, but it's at least two weeks, probably longer.


TekSavvy could have reacted earlier. It would have helped me as I would have had time to put in a good submission. Instead they got no submission as I was too busy.



krs said:


> 2. The second point is that there are a number of alternatives - Bell doesn't really have a monopoly here as some claim.
> Not only can I use cable, one can also use wireless in many locations or satellite.


This is true, there are alternatives, but they are not necessarily better then TekSavvy. Nor should the market be controlled by a cartel. There should be many players. Bell is trying to make any company that depends on any of its infrastructure inferior to Bell in service. If the CRTC bends at this point it will have essentially allowed Bell carte blanche to form a cartel with Rogers in Toronto.



krs said:


> 3. And finally, 60 GB per month should be more than enough for the vast majority of the users. I'm currently subscribe to a 30 GB/month service - use the internet constantly all day, and I'm never even close to my limits.
> But then again, I don't download movies, videos, things that gobble up bandwidth.


I've gone over 60 GB once, so it isn't a problem for me. I am primarily concerned about the principal of what is going on. And here Bell is abusing the process.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Is Techsavvy the only ISP (who is using DSL) complaining about that?
I haven't heard 'boo' from anyone else. I use DSL with an ISP in Ontario and I haven't heard a peep from him - and he is quite vocal when it comes to universal and free access to the net.

I remember when Techsavvy was also up front and centre making a big issue out of the throttling activity by Bell and in the end it turned out a lot of it was misinformation and hype.

You said "Bell is trying to make any company that depends on any of its infrastructure inferior to Bell in service" - is that really true - it's not the way I read it. I'm sure if that were the case, ie gain an unfair competitive advantage, more than just CRTC would be involved on the government side.

It's sort of tough that ISP's who use DSL depend on Bell's infrastructure to a large degree, but theoretically, they could string their own lines to the end user. Not very practical, but an option. So I have a hard time looking at any of this as a cartel.


----------



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

Good to see that many have responded to my initial post. Although 60 GB may be sufficient for some today, what about tomorrow? I send pictures and videos to relatives, I send large files to potential customers and investors in the form of video and PDF.
I download trial software, and purchase software online. Many software companies are switching to this method to avoid boxes, and many are using Bit-torrent to do it, take X-Plane for example.
More and more video is available online, Youtube type content is on the rise, so is VOIP. As the bandwidth capabilities get better (remember 56K?), the online content will become bigger, and streams more robust.
If anything, the caps should be going the other way.
Bell calls me every now and then to get me to switch back, but when I ask them to compete, they say they are forbidden to compete with another DSL provider that is supplied by Bell. It makes me wonder how they will manage to do this to Teksavvy. Seems rather anti-competitive.
On the grand scale, it essentially says that people who are willing to pay may have unlimited downloads, but those that cannot pay, will have to take the cap. So what we have is the beginning of a two tiered system.
This is what I am fundamentally opposed to, and what may be the seed that crushes this. I just read that Time Warner has decided against caps, and a US congressman took up the issue as well. 
We need to stay on top of this, because in a few years it may make more of a difference.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Carl said:


> On the grand scale, it essentially says that people who are willing to pay may have unlimited downloads, but those that cannot pay, will have to take the cap. So what we have is the beginning of a two tiered system.
> This is what I am fundamentally opposed to,


If that is your issue, then you need to move to a communist or socialist country.

Our capitalist society basically works this way - the more you want or get, the more you pay.
Cellphones are a good example that I'm sure everyone can relate to.
People who are willing to pay may have unlimited talk time, but for those who cannot pay, their talk time per month is limited - 50 minutes, 100 minutes, 200 minutes, 400 minutes.....it's not a two-tier system, it's a multi-tier system.
Where's the difference between that and caps on downloads?
It's actually not downloads but total data transfer.

The more data you transfer over the net, the more money it costs and if it costs more, I think a company is justified in charging more.

I have my doubts that the current ISP rates are sustainable. With net traffic increasing at a fierce rate, the infrastructure isn't keeping pace and there is not enough investment to expand it to match current traffic growth.
Anyone notice how long it takes to receive emails lately - often several hours at peak times.
The electrons aren't moving any slower - the emails are getting bogged down at intermediate nodes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

krs said:


> Anyone notice how long it takes to receive emails lately - often several hours at peak times.
> The electrons aren't moving any slower - the emails are getting bogged down at intermediate nodes.


As a matter of fact no, not at all. My e-mail downloads in seconds every single time for over 10 years now on Telus high speed DSL.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bgw said:


> I, actually, wasn't thinking of the legal point. More along the lines of business and societal benefits. What do you think on that point?


Well yes I would tend to agree, but without being required to do so, I can't see Bell ever doing anything just because it is for the benefit of society. If it would somehow improve their bottom line, then they the would have a reason but otherwise no I can't see this happening.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

krs said:


> I have my doubts that the current ISP rates are sustainable. With net traffic increasing at a fierce rate, the infrastructure isn't keeping pace and there is not enough investment to expand it to match current traffic growth.
> Anyone notice how long it takes to receive emails lately - often several hours at peak times.
> The electrons aren't moving any slower - the emails are getting bogged down at intermediate nodes.


I haven't seen this at all. My emails are delivered in seconds, and my transfer rates for other data have increased dramatically over the last couple of years.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

SINC said:


> As a matter of fact no, not at all. My e-mail downloads in seconds every single time for over 10 years now on Telus high speed DSL.


No, no, no -

You misunderstood - didn't read my post to the end I suppose.

The download from the ISP server is not the issue, how can that take hours as I wrote - doesn't make any sense.

What takes forever compared to a year ago is the transition of the email through the net.
That's why I wrote the delay is cause by intermediate nodes because the links themselves, the high capacity pipes between the nodes that make up the net, move the elctrons at the same speed as always.

I don't know what time stamps you guys get on your emails, but if I look at some of mine, the time when the email was sent is often two hours or more before it was received.

I noticed that initially when I signed up on some forum and they sent me a final registration email. Those are sent automatically and I had to wait several hours for it to arrive at my ISP's mail server.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

krs said:


> I remember when Techsavvy was also up front and centre making a big issue out of the throttling activity by Bell and in the end it turned out a lot of it was misinformation and hype.


What part of their battle against DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) do you think was misinformation or hype? Bell DID start doing this with no notification to their wholesale bandwidth customers, and they still ARE throttling as they deem fit. I'm not sure how you see this as misinformation and hype? In the end it turned out that Bell got their way and basically flipped the bird to all of their wholesale customers with the permission of the CRTC.

A wholesale bandwidth customer is buying just that .. wholesale bandwidth ... not X amount of bandwidth per customer, but bandwidth in a lump sum that they should then be able to do whatever they want with, but that's no longer the case with the DPI that Bell does -- they are fundamentally altering that bandwidth for what they term "the good of the network". By the "good of the network" they really mean to say that they have massively oversold themselves and are trying desperately to find ways to cut back on what they are contracted to deliver. If this next bit goes through then Bell is also limiting things on a per customer basis to their wholesale clients. At that point they have literally forced wholesale customer into being Bell resellers whether they want to or not. No one would be able to compete at that point as they are forced to follow the same restrictions that Bell arbitrarily chose to impose on their own customers as far as bandwidth usage goes.

DPI and UBB are like the parent electricity company (for example Ontario Hydro) installing meters that monitor your electricity usage without notifying the local hydro provider and rationing how much hyrdo you get to use at any given time as well as per month before you pay ridiculous usage fees -- they look at your usage and say "Ahh, using a blow drier again huh? Ok, let's just make it only run on ultra-low speed. And oh, by the way, next month if you use more than X amount of electricity we're more than quadrupling the cost per KwH for anything past your new cap."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

krs said:


> No, no, no -
> 
> You misunderstood - didn't read my post to the end I suppose.
> 
> ...


Oh, I understand all right, but again I say my e-mail downloads in seconds and the time stamp on the e-mail I receive is within minutes of receiving it. I can send a message to Yahoo groups I belong to and see my own e-mail received back to me in under a minute, sometimes in seconds.

My Apple Mail app is set to check every minute and sometimes the time stamp on the sent mail is identical to the time received, it is that fast.

Look at this example of the last e-mail received from mac.com to Telus, and the time it was sent, about 20 seconds earlier:


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2009)

krs said:


> No, no, no -
> 
> You misunderstood - didn't read my post to the end I suppose.
> 
> ...


It's extremely unlikely that it gets stuck at "intermediate nodes" ... it was either queued by your ISP's server or your ISP's server was too busy to accept it and process it -- which means the sending server has to keep retrying periodically until your ISP's mail server will finally accept the mail. Email gets handed (mostly) directly to the end server when it is sent (unless you are going through some sort of additional SMTP relay).


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

mguertin said:


> Email gets handed (mostly) directly to the end server when it is sent


Are you suggesting there is a direct link between the sender's server and the recipients server?
The internet is a packet-type network, not a circuit-switched network. 
Pretty much all traffic passes through numerous intermediate nodes, any one of of them can get bogged down for whatever reason.

Now, it's still possible that my ISPs mail server didn't accept the email, but that's not the only place they can get delayed. I'll call them Monday to see what they have to say.

It's just that numerous emails I get, not all, (but I don't check all of them), encounter ridiculous delays of several hours.

As to the comparison with hydro - both in Ontario and Quebec one can argue that there is a two-tier system. Rates are lower for people who use very little - once you pass a threshold the rates go up.
There is also a cap - except here it's real. Once the consumption gets close to capacity, hydro will either reduce the line voltage (which I suppose one can compare to throttling) or resort to "moving power outages" across the province.


----------



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

I do live in a socialist country. It's called Canada.
As a rule, we don't deny things like medical care or access to information to people who do not have money. This isn't about commercial consumption, this is about the way information will be made available in the future. Caps are one thing, paying 0.25 bucks for extra Gigs is fine, they are going to tariff overages at a high rate now.

That's wrong, it's counterproductive, and if anything, it shouldn't be regulated by a private company. Bell is now the gatekeeper.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Carl said:


> I do live in a socialist country. It's called Canada.



:lmao::lmao::lmao: Good one.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Carl said:


> As a rule, we don't deny things like medical care or access to information to people who do not have money. This isn't about commercial consumption, this is about the way information will be made available in the future. Caps are one thing, paying 0.25 bucks for extra Gigs is fine, they are going to tariff overages at a high rate now.
> 
> That's wrong, it's counterproductive, and if anything, it shouldn't be regulated by a private company. Bell is now the gatekeeper.


You're taking Teksavvy as the gospel on this which they are not. Bell will still have to compete with the other major broad band providers aka cable. If they are too expensive people will vote with their feet and walk away from Bell... as they should. If they start to charge huge overage fees, and people stay with them then they have no one to blame but themselves when they have alternative service providers.

I said f**k Bell along time ago and will never have anything to do with them again. If more people did this Bell would have to change its ways. As long as people just bitch and complain and don't dump them, then what incentive do they have to do anything differently?

Bell is only the gate keeper if people keep using them as their point of entrance.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
It's not even about charges for "going over" - it is about false advertisement and promises that are made and then are broken by Bell. They advertise that you can watch movies with their Sympatico account, and of they do not live up to this expectation, an expectation that they instilled in their advertising, then it is a clear case of fraud.

Same with their attempt to "throttle" torrents - which is the only protocol able to handle the transfer of large files involved in such things as movie length video - which again, by throttling, one can not watch the movies that their own advertising "promises".

It is also wrong that they make "offers" then choose not to follow them through. If this was some other business and that business decided to engage in the same tactics, of making promises then not following through, then it would be fraud and it would be all about dragging it into court.

As for capping or lack of capping - that is one issue, and sure, if Bell had advertised that one could, say, have an account that is sufficient to download Office updates and read e-mail - that is one case. But they didn't - they advertise that you can use their service to watch movies, streaming video, play online games, and every other kind of high bandwidth use.

As for throttling - they make the bogus claim that torrents consume bandwidth (though not making the same case with VOIP which needs very low latency, or streaming media that needs immediate bandwidth) - and if throttling is allowed, it also means that they have the right to choose which protocols that the user may or may not use. Thus, they could say that Micro$loth Live is mandatory, or that Yahoo is the only search engine allowed... It's a question of that the nature of the ISP is and whether or not they should be diddling with user's data. As for torrents - torrents entirely save bandwidh because the transfer is both error correcting, doesn't need to be sequential, and doesn't need to be instantaneous or fast, and is a big step ahead of something like FTP, which is not a good protocol for large new media files (and is much better than HTTPGet...)

I think "The Internet" in this country needs to be operated over a completely separate media that is fiber optic based, and is operated like a public utility - rather than in this ad hoc affair we have now where the oligarchs that control it see fit to bash their customers in the head on a regular basis.

As for whether or not 60GB is "generous" comes down to use, and if one is to use the traditional kinds of usage patterns, like looking at a few web pages, reading e-mail, and a few updates - then even 1 GB would fit the bill - but once one takes on Internet Radio, watching movies and TV shows, or telecommuting via VPN - then 60GB is not much space at all. So one can make the argument that people that use "bandwidth" should pay more - but then, every time I receive spam or am forced to sit through some crummy Flash Website, I should get credit for bandwidth wasted.

And if Bell wants to rip off their own customers - that is one issue; but now they are in a tantrum since their little plot at choking the big broadcasters like the BBC and Universal Studios has utterly failed; and that they own service is pretty much the crummiest experience possible; they now wish to have the Government give them carte blanche to rip off the customers that use alternate services...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

So rather than complain about how they are ripping you off, *leave* them and their wholesalers (which still ends up being money in Bell's pockets).


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2009)

krs said:


> Are you suggesting there is a direct link between the sender's server and the recipients server?
> The internet is a packet-type network, not a circuit-switched network.
> Pretty much all traffic passes through numerous intermediate nodes, any one of of them can get bogged down for whatever reason.
> 
> ...


I'm not suggesting that there are direct links from one mail server to the other, standard TCP/IP routing applies but ... the mail itself is not sent to intermediate servers. The packets obviously have to be routed, but in the case of congestion you're packets won't get bogged down for hours, they will get re-routed. If there are delays of that long it's a queueing thing on your ISP mail server or it's refusing connections and forcing the sending server to resend periodically until it can get through.

I guess that analogy wasn't the best one then ... I give up trying to explain to people who just don't get it ... but there are real anti-competitive actions happening with this, with the thinly veiled threat of "for the good of the network" tied to it. At the end of the day they are unfairly forcing their wholesale customer to lose what little advantage they had over bell and bell resellers.

As for all the comments about going with one of the cable providers instead of a Bell supplied carrier ... sadly the cable providers, at least the ones available to me, are notoriously unreliable (my neighbors say that their internet goes down at least a couple of times a week), and they flat out don't provide service I need -- like a static IP address. I did inquire about that when I moved to my new house last year. They said to get a static IP address I'd need to go with a business line. So I said, Ok ... how much is a business line, and they relied that they don't offer it in my area as it's residential. Also even if I could get it, a business connection is more than double what a residential one is. The only difference? You guessed it, the possibility of a static IP address (which you also still have to pay a premium for). At the end of the day to get the "same" service (and I use that term very loosely as it's not even close when it comes to tech support or the fact that I can do MLPPP to bond lines with TekSavvy) it would cost me 2.2 times as much as I pay right now for less than half the monthly bandwidth on a much less reliable network. Ya ... that sounds good huh?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> As for all the comments about going with one of the cable providers instead of a Bell supplied carrier ... sadly the cable providers, at least the ones available to me, are notoriously unreliable (my neighbors say that their internet goes down at least a couple of times a week), and they flat out don't provide service I need -- like a static IP address. I did inquire about that when I moved to my new house last year. They said to get a static IP address I'd need to go with a business line. So I said, Ok ... how much is a business line, and they relied that they don't offer it in my area as it's residential. Also even if I could get it, a business connection is more than double what a residential one is. The only difference? You guessed it, the possibility of a static IP address (which you also still have to pay a premium for). At the end of the day to get the "same" service (and I use that term very loosely as it's not even close when it comes to tech support or the fact that I can do MLPPP to bond lines with TekSavvy) it would cost me 2.2 times as much as I pay right now for less than half the monthly bandwidth on a much less reliable network. Ya ... that sounds good huh?


Who is your cable provider? That sucks. None of these problems with Videotron.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> So rather than complain about how they are ripping you off, *leave* them and their wholesalers (which still ends up being money in Bell's pockets).


Unfortunately, going "elsewhere" is not always possible. For instance, my neighbourhood doesn't have any high-speed, so the only ay of getting high-speed is through satellite - which is not only expensive on a month to month basis, the required building permits and variances could take up to three years.

At my girlfriend's place, the only high-speed possible is via DSL, thus Bell is an intergral link in the equation. She does not have the option of going Cable unless she can curry the required votes to bring High-Speed Cable into the building, and considering the other tenants, something that will probably never happen.

And no matter whether it is DSL or Cable - neither system is really high-speed because neither system uses the only high-speed medium available - that of fiber optic...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Well then those of you who are essentially stuck with a Bell monopoly have every right to complain and fervently and make sure your voices are heard at Bell and the CRTC not just here.

For those who have options available to them I still believe the best way to make Bell "hear" you is by walking away and taking your business elsewhere. I started my "F**K Bell" campaign a number of years ago and have advocated to family, friends and neighbours to drop them. A number of them have and as far as I am concerned the more the better.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2009)

screature said:


> Who is your cable provider? That sucks. None of these problems with Videotron.


The only cable provider I can get here is a company called Cogeco. Here's a quick comparison for you ...

With TekSavvy:

For $29.95/mnth I get a 200G/mnth capped account with premium routing, and for an extra $4/mnth I get a static IP address. I could also get an unlimited account without preium routing for the same price. I'm about 6 hops from anything major on the internet and have extremely low latency and virtually no jitter. I own my own DSL modem (was $69 one-time fee to purchase from them) so no additional costs there. I also run my DSL connection on a dry-loop line, which is another $9 or so a month as I don't have a Bell phone line. Total cost of about $43/mnth + taxes. With TekSavvy there are no "term based" contracts at all that determine pricing.

With Cogeco:

For $69.95 a month I would be able to get a 100G capped account with horrible latency/routing (a neighbor has this and let me do some testing on it). My neighbor is a minimum of 12 hops just to get out of the Cogeco network and about 3x (or more) the latency than my current connection. I use VoIP so it is important to me to have low latency and less jitter. This package comes with 3 dynamic IP address (why anyone would want 3 dynamic IP addresses for a home connection I'm not sure unless they don't want to use a router I suppose ...)

For $89.95/mnth with a 12 month contract (or $99.95/mnth without a contract) they offer a business package that is 200G/mnth with either 1 static or 3 dynamic IP addresses (which I can't get in my area according to them). The kicker? It's the exact same routing and latency as the standard home user packages. Their overage charges are $1.00/Gb (4x what TekSavvy charges). All of their packages include a modem rental (included in the monthly costs). You can't use your own modem and you can't buy one from Cogeco to lower the monthly costs.

And lastly for an unlimited account (which still states in fine print that they can cut you off for unreasonable bandwidth usage, solely determined by Cogeco) you can get the killer deal of $189.95/mnth on a 3 year term, or $199.95/mnth on a 2 year term (you have to do at least a 2 year term to get this apparently) and you can buy your modem for the low price of $149.95 (they don't say how much owning a modem will save you per month).

So at more than double the cost they still can't deliver what I get right now from TekSavvy, not even mentioning the fact that when I call TekSavvy support I speak to actual network techs, not minimum-wage people phone answerers with scripted answers that keep trying to tell me to click my start button even though I'm on a Mac and that the problem has nothing to do with my computer. That in itself makes the world of difference to me, being a network guy myself. To date I've never had to be transferred to someone else to understand what my issue was with TekSavvy and I think the longest I've ever waited on hold was about 10 minutes (that was one time only, usually you get an immediate answer) -- the person that answered the phone was always competent enough to solve the issue directly .. including having full access to everything they needed to diagnose the issues. If/when I had to call back for the same issue or to check up on anything I could talk directly to them, once on your support case the same tech stayed on your support case until it was finished.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Holy crap mg Cogeco is outrageous!! Are you out in the sticks somewhere? Those prices are insane!!


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

screature said:


> Holy crap mg Cogeco is outrageous!! Are you out in the sticks somewhere? Those prices are insane!!


A Bell cartel will impose what mguertin talks about with Cogeco on everybody. Even with TekSavvy I cannot get the same low rates as my relatives in Japan (unlimited down load, 30 GB upload a day, max. at a speed of 10 Mb/s) for $25.00 a month! You like your service provider (they ain't that bad) and I Iike TekSavvy, but we are still all ripped off by the backbone providers. (I understand that internet rates are better is South Korea but I don't have first hand knowledge of them.) Don't talk about Japan having a higher population density then Canada, outside of Tokyo and Osaka population density is low. Service is still good because in that highly capitalistic society the government decided in the early 90's to put fibre down every street.

What we have here is a Governmental failure of vision. The CRTC basically rolls over every time Bell wants it to and we the customers get shoddier and shoddier service.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
And he is quoting the older, more favourable rates. Cogeco has hiked their rates while dropping their caps - they are now capping at 10GB/month, and you have to "bundle" the High-Speed with one of their premium cable TV package. Expect at least one or two service outages a month, as their ancient cable network that was installed by Maclean-Hunter can't hack the heat. Anytime someone in the neighbourhood gets added, the TV will go all "digitized" or "pixelated" for two or three days. Though they have not started to throttle, the main problem is that their "upload pipe" is only 4MHz wide, a legacy of the old days, so download speeds will look great, but uploads are pathetic, especially if a bunch of people in the neighbourhood are either uploading (and using bandwidth), or TV users are cruising around the Guide for a new show (so expect bad speeds and excessively bad latency on the half hours)...

It's nothing like you get with Videotron, trust me. It is simply easier in these parts to take the laptop to one of the HotSpots, where for me, 1GB of download costs me $1.45 (for a large coffee), though it is not an effective way to snag movie or tv shows (it is good enough for software updates an stuff though).

Our whole "High-Speed" Internet experince in this country is ersatz, some places get fabulous Internet, like in Goderich where they have Fiber Optic to every house, or in Chatham-Kent where Teksavvy offers WiMax across the whole county - to places like the neighbourhood I live in, where not only don't we have High-Speed, I can't even get 56kB/s, or my friend's place where, because he is just the other sie of the township line, can't even get up to 28.8kB/s.

But service aside, I think the real issue is how corporates like Bell are arbitrarily opening up contracts and agreements that they have with their customers in order to poop on them - to remove those services that were so clearly advertised and hence, attracted customers, while at the same time, in many (or most) places, there is no actual alternative when it comes to High-Speed.

And it is not like High-Speed is a luxury that one can do without. New media file sizes are growing like crazy, and thus, even the most rudamentary use of computers these days pretty much demands high-speed (or at least with Apple, having a laptop and hitting a HotSpot to grab updates and stuff). If Bell can't handle the heat, it's time for them to give it over to someone that can, perhaps people that actually know something about the Internet and are not just Windoze-only wankers who drool over M$ Live...


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2009)

screature said:


> Holy crap mg Cogeco is outrageous!! Are you out in the sticks somewhere? Those prices are insane!!


Yes they are insane and now you know why this whole move by Bell is so upsetting to me and others in similar situations. I finally found a fantastic ISP that fills my needs perfectly for a good price and Bell is pulling the rug out from under their feet.

I'm not in the sticks by any means. I live in Oakville -- half way between Hamilton and Toronto and right on Lake Ontario -- according to wikipedia the 2006 population was 165,613. We just have little to no choice for high speed internet access that is NOT somehow tied to Bell. The way things are going with this UBB is not a good situation at all.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2009)

> Though they have not started to throttle,


Cogeco throttles here, the same as Rogers does in the GTA. In fact they throttle ALL encrypted connections .. it's ridiculous. Connection securely to a client's mail server (FirstClass) over my neighbors Cogeco connection I got a download speed of 8k/second. From my TekSavvy connection (which is not throttled thanks to MLPPP and Bell's system not being able to inspect those packets) is 120k/second. Trying to do VNC over VPN to a client's server it was completely unusable. 2 mins for a screen redraw. Thankfully I only had to suffer with that for a couple of days -- until Bell fixed my dry-loop line.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Our Telus service here has been good with no throttling evident.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Well I have to say my heart goes out to all you who are stuck with basically a Bell monopoly. I never realized how good I have it with Videotron until hearing your horror stories.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> Well I have to say my heart goes out to all you who are stuck with basically a Bell monopoly. I never realized how good I have it with Videotron until hearing your horror stories.


Bell has even resorted to attacking my dial-up connection by putting "clicks" on the line which cause the modem to drop carrier. I thought it was a random thing, until I noticed the very distince triple clicks while using the phone, and even on my answering machine, or when I am FAXing.

But then, Bell promised to charge me $120 if I decide to make a long distance call because I don't want one of their crummy plans - and since this neighbourhood, which is entirely in town and less than a twenty minute walk from downtown, doesn't have high-speed, I can't even get VOIP.

Bell is scum, and I hope they go bankrupt so that we can get a real phone company to run things. Really, they spend more time changing the company fonts, fondling their customer contracts, obfuscating their monthy billing with cheezy graphics and extra-fine print, diddling their mail servers so they are not compatible with any known IMAP or POP3 software, making their inbound call center even more byzantine, and deeply inspecting every packet to render VPN unusable - than providing the services that they say they provide...

Yes, you are lucky not to be held hostage by Hell Canada... beejacon


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Bell has even resorted to attacking my dial-up connection by putting "clicks" on the line which cause the modem to drop carrier. I thought it was a random thing, until I noticed the very distince triple clicks while using the phone, and even on my answering machine, or when I am FAXing.


I don't think Bell would be so dumb to do that. It would also cost them too much. Get your outside like checked. You can probably do your own inside check. If the outside line is bad, get Bell to fix it. I have had some good Bell techs who have worked very hard on getting me a clean line.

For long distance use YAK (10-10-925) or phone cards. No need to go through Bell. Look's like you can't use Skype, which is a real pain.

Ideally Bell should be broken up. A not for profit infrastructure company and then other for profit companies that use the network. Sympatico and TekSavvy would then be on an equal footing and there would be fewer stupid, short sighted decisions made.

Bell isn't scum. But Bell is making poor decisions because of the regulatory environment it is in. The real blame lies at the feet of our choice of politicians at the federal level. Good laws and regulation will force Bell and others to behave.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bgw said:


> Bell isn't scum. But Bell is making poor decisions because of the regulatory environment it is in. The real blame lies at the feet of our choice of politicians at the federal level. Good laws and regulation will force Bell and others to behave.


Sorry I agree with EP, Bell is scum that is why I left them years ago. A good corporate citizen (just like a good individual) doesn't need strict legislation, and regulations to do the right thing. 

That is like thinking that the only reason why people don't go around killing each other is because it is against the law. Good people don't do this because they intrinsically understand that it is fundamentally wrong.

Only scoundrels will do everything they can "under the letter of the law" to bilk their customers for every penny they can and then continue to seek out "creative" ways to make even more money by changing the "rules" they themselves established once the game is in play. No Bell is scum.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

screature said:


> Sorry I agree with EP, Bell is scum that is why I left them years ago. A good corporate citizen (just like a good individual) doesn't need strict legislation, and regulations to do the right thing.
> 
> That is like thinking that the only reason why people don't go around killing each other is because it is against the law. Good people don't do this because they intrinsically understand that it is fundamentally wrong.
> 
> Only scoundrels will do everything they can "under the letter of the law" to bilk their customers for every penny they can and then continue to seek out "creative" ways to make even more money by changing the "rules" they themselves established once the game is in play. No Bell is scum.


Actually screature when you put it that way I agree with you! I was taking the wrong angle. Bell, should, as a good corporate citizen do the right thing and offer a good product at a fair value. Which it isn't. I remember paying $30.00 a month for Bell's 1 GB/month at 1 Mb/sec high speed service and getting $30.00 overage fees when my kids discovered YouTube! They hadn't even hit 10 GB of usage a month. Now I get 200 GB at 5 Mb/sec from TekSavvy and it only costs $30.00 a month! Then I forgot to remember their deep packet inspection and throttling. Bell's own data indicates that these two steps are unnecessary. 

Still, I believe that a break up of Bell is in order and the CRTC needs teeth. 

Yes,


screature said:


> EvanPitts said:
> 
> 
> > Bell is scum.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2009)

Bell and Sympatico are already separate companies (as well as Entourage -- bell's former in-house installation folks). This happened many years ago and didn't help anything except in a case I had to take up with them (and I do literally mean a case as it went to court). 

They overcharged me for 6+ months of DSL usage using pre-auth withdrawals on a bank account I wasn't paying attention to (as I had set it up just to use with them for pre-auth payments) -- racking up many hundreds of dollars in overdraft and NSF charges. They billed me for 7 months of DSL after I cancelled the account (sometimes trying up to 5 times a month to withdraw the money from an empty bank account for the same monthly charge). When I called them to ask why I was never notified of the unpaid account and why they were still billing me they swore up and down that they showed usage on my account right up to and including the day I was talking to them about it. When I told them it had been cancelled almost 7 months earlier they said it was impossible and they had nothing in their records to show that it was cancelled and that I owed them (and apparently also my bank who failed to notify me) a lot of money for all the attempted withdrawals they made from my bank account.

Luckily I had kept my bell phone bill that showed exactly when the DSL card was removed from my phone line (at the proper time) that I had to produce in court to prove myself as Sympatico didn't have "access to Bell records" to determine this -- even though they ordered the DSL card removal from Bell. Long story short I didn't end up owing Sympatico the money at the end of the day -- which didn't help with all the crazy amounts of NSF and overdraft charges they racked up on my bank account which I was unable to recover from them. Long story short ... Sympatico (Bell) are crooks and pre-auth payments are a BAD BAD idea. When you authorize them you basically authorize the company in question to make withdrawals of whatever amount they think you owe them from your bank account, as often as the like -- I have the bank records to prove it. When I confronted the bank about all of it they were the ones that informed me that Sympatico didn't do anything wrong -- even though they would try and take the same payment out up to 5 times in the same month. Now compound that by 6+ months and you can get an idea just how much money that little adventure cost me. The bank told me it was my problem because I was a bank book customer and if I didn't come in and update my bank book it wasn't their fault and they didn't feel at fault for not contacting me that there were problems with my bank account.

What a nightmare this one was ... and incidentally the last time I used Sympatico and that particular bank for anything.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

New testimony at the CRTC hearings...



> Bell Canada slows certain types of downloads to as little as 1.5 to 3 per cent of their advertised speed during 9½ hours of the day, but not to the same extent during the entire period, company executives revealed to Canada's internet regulator Tuesday.
> 
> The details of the way the company throttles — selectively slows down — peer-to-peer (P2P) file transfers will soon be posted on the company's website, Jonathan Daniels, Bell's vice-president of regulatory law, said at a hearing Tuesday before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
If they want to throttle protocols like Torrents - they should also have to throttle garbage like VOIP and streaming media, because fair is fair. Throttling torrents so that people can make phoen calls simply discriminates against those that use Torrents for things like Linux distributions and such.

I think it is a load of malarkey myself. If they companies want to attack piracy, they should go after the pirates, not the protocols that people use all of the time for legitimate purposes. Throttling also clobbers stuff like VPN, https: and other encrypted forms of traffic - much of which is entirely legitimate.

This just goes to show that the quasi-monopoly power just has to be taken away from these goons. Really, Bell is fraudulent because they promise things like High Speeds and the ability to watch movies - and then cap and throttle things to tightly that no one can use these things. Plus, they have an entirely obsolete infrastructure, with no hope of actually ever getting Fiber Optic. They even rip off their "competition", because they throttle them even tighter. People were all gettign excited about Rogers offering a 10Mb/s service - which is crud considering that in Korea, they are in the process of scrapping theior obsolete 100Mb/s service in favour of 1Gb/s - at rates that are entirely affordable, and make our services here look like expensive crud.

Maybe it is time to remove these companies from the infrastructure, and instead, have a company or companies that offer real infrastructure that work on a cost recovery basis. We have a very real problem where too many people have no chance of even obtaining what passes as High Speed simply because they don't live in downtown Toronto or something.

bell is the biggest pile of garbage imaginable, and the only reason I retain their service is so I can use my dial-up, since I see no progress when it comes to getting anything else. Of course, making a single long distance call will cost an outrageous amount of cash, because they slap a $10 per month charge on, and at the end of the year, they charge another $10 for the priviledge of not making long distance calls. Not that going Cell would be any better, because the service I want would mean making trips into Buffalo for payments - something that I can not easily do until I receive a presidential pardon and a travel visa. And even then, the company I would want to use no longer exists, though Nextel is almost as good as Cingular was, and they even have proper 4G service...


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

This cap and throttling is a bunch a BS, and I don't want to go to the small guy because I like my high speed extreme and have heard some stories negative stories regarding some independent internet dealers. 

I went over my 95 GB cap last month with Rogers, complained to them about how the net was changing in terms of people downloading more and more etc, and they did not offer any good solutions. I was even willing to pay more per month or get another plan, but I think it is unfair to pay $25 extra to have unlimited downloads when the price is already fairly high, and they throttle your connection. The customer service woman said that they stop billing at $25 extra on your bill after you go over the 95 GB limit so I proceeded to upload/ download 320 GB worth pretty much in spite. 

I called them the other week because my internet is being throttled pretty bad this month, and sticks frequently when trying to open web pages, and I called Rogers and they told me to scan for a virus and do some maintenance. I told the women that the problem was that Rogers was throttling my connection but she ignored me, and I didn't feel like getting into it with her because she was just doing her job. 

I was thinking about Bell but there cap sucks as well, and the little guy I am not sure of the service I would receive etc but if I could find a good one, I would switch. Anytime I go over my limit, I will download at unreasonable levels until they decide to cater to the growing needs of the internet user and decide to become more reasonable, and not just greedy corporate swines.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Clockwork said:


> This cap and throttling is a bunch a BS, and I don't want to go to the small guy because I like my high speed extreme and have heard some stories negative stories regarding some independent internet dealers.


From everyone I have talked to about it, Teksavvy is an excellent independent, and times that I ave talked to them, they know OSX and Linux - unlike the "biggies" that don't even know Windoze. Plus, you can use a modem of your choice, rather than paying outrageous "rental fees" for inadequate equipment that will fail to work in practical settings.



> I called them the other week because my internet is being throttled pretty bad this month, and sticks frequently when trying to open web pages, and I called Rogers and they told me to scan for a virus and do some maintenance. I told the women that the problem was that Rogers was throttling my connection but she ignored me, and I didn't feel like getting into it with her because she was just doing her job.


For "tech support", it sounds awfully lame - like, haven't they heard that Macs don't have viruses?



> I was thinking about Bell but there cap sucks as well,


Bell is WORSE - they chopped their caps in half recently, so their Lite accounts get 1GB/month, and their regular accounts were sliced to 10GB/month. They throttle like all craziness, and I mean craziness. Not just torrents, but they throttle GoogleMail of all things. They may have "high speeds", but after all of their processing, throttling, capping, system resets, and whatever else - it's not much faster than my $3/month dial-up. Worse yet is you get stiffed with their Stupidpatico home page, which takes forever to load and looks like garbage.

If you want real High Speed - move to Korea, or another third world country, because they have such things there that are quite affordable.



> Anytime I go over my limit, I will download at unreasonable levels until they decide to cater to the growing needs of the internet user and decide to become more reasonable, and not just greedy corporate swines.


I think they should have to throttle and cap all of the other protocols that use up bandwidth like crazy, like VOIP and streaming media - it should be a fair and even playing field for all. We really have no need for VOIP anyways, since we do have a viable phone system, and people only suffer with VOIP because of the inane billing and poor customer service that Bell dishes out.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I checked out Teksavvy but they are not available in my area but they do sound pretty good so perhaps in the future 

The customer service woman said she was going to transfer me over to the Rogers "Mac" department and then said she spoke to the so called "Mac" guy who told her to tell me to scan for viruses etc lol (I trumped the bastards and even though I knew it wasn't my iMac, I decided which I was going to do at some point anyway, to format and fresh install). This was just another reason I wasn't going to get into a debate with the lady. Over the years more people have decided to use Mac but for the most part people are still pretty dumb when it comes to the Mac OS. At least it is better now that Apple is more recognizable because when I first started using Macs many years ago they would just think you were strange, and have no idea about Mac's, or Mac OS, or care for that matter. 

The internet isn't too bad with Rogers and the speeds are pretty decent but I think it's crappy the throttling and caping, and personally I think it should be illegal. I remember when Rogers first came into my area many years ago and it was called the "wave" or something like that, and I used to get 500 up and 500 down regularly. Internet was so fast it was ridiculous but not many people had high speed at that point so they didn't care about bandwidth. 

Rogers is capitalist when it comes to making money, but communist when it comes to thinking we should all share our internet with one another to keep speeds fast  I say they buy more bandwidth with all the money they steal off people.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Clockwork said:


> At least it is better now that Apple is more recognizable because when I first started using Macs many years ago they would just think you were strange, and have no idea about Mac's, or Mac OS, or care for that matter.


Of course, 99.995% of the time, the problem is on their end, either with some defective or obsolete equipment, shoddy lines, or massive server crashed - all of which they generally blame on the customer. It doesn't matter what OS someone is using when it is the providers junk giving up the bun.



> The internet isn't too bad with Rogers and the speeds are pretty decent but I think it's crappy the throttling and caping, and personally I think it should be illegal. I remember when Rogers first came into my area many years ago and it was called the "wave" or something like that, and I used to get 500 up and 500 down regularly. Internet was so fast it was ridiculous but not many people had high speed at that point so they didn't care about bandwidth.


I just think they shouldn't misrepresent themselves, by showing all of these awesome things that can't actually be done, like downloading and watching movies. Well, I guess someone, given the time and patience, may be able to watch two movies in a month before blowing the cap all to bits, so in essence, it would be cheaper just to go to the movies than to pay for services that will never be rendered. If they can't supply the speed or the bandwidth - they should just show it up front, rather than showing something that will never happen, while filing some disclaimer in the tiniest print possible to save them from legal problems.



> Rogers is capitalist when it comes to making money, but communist when it comes to thinking we should all share our internet with one another to keep speeds fast  I say they buy more bandwidth with all the money they steal off people.


Considering the method that Torrents use, and the fact that a torrent does not need giant wads of instant bandwidth like streaming does - you would think they would really want to gravitate towards torrents, or a torrent like protocol. Streaming, on the other hand, really cripples servers since such activity tends to be instant, with thousands of people flocking at the same time to get whatever it is, which ends up crashing servers and clogging the networks. Torrents are the evolution of Internet topology, especially in an age where people are not using uucp very much.

I think the field should be evened out. Business in general is afflicted with people engaged in other people's business. Grocery stores that are selling stereos and furniture, hardware stores selling groceries, video rental stores selling cell phones, cell phone companies selling computers, computer companies selling TVs - and to top it off, Bell selling Internet when it can't even get phones right, or Rogers selling their inferior cellular services while bumbling around with trying to replace Bell as a phone company. Now we have the "Internet providers" who instead of providing internet service, are acting like law enforcement trying to crack down on piracy, and in the process, sideswiping the vast majority of users who are engaged in legal and legitimate uses of technology.

None of this is new for Canada, we are so retrograde, with bad cell phone services that are among the most expensive in the world, with crazy monopolies that come up with new "plans" no one wants but are forced into it, where "high-speed" is what places like Korea gave up on ten years ago because the speed was too pathetic, where we are still wasting time with obsolete copper lines because of the corporate greed that keeps progress and fiber optics at bay. To think of people getting "excited" about 3G smart phones when 4G is already out in the US - and most of our providers still don't have 3G...

They really need to come up with something, because really, we are falling so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to progress.


----------

