# CRTC & the Internet



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

I decided to do something and write to the CRTC and voice my opinion on the throttling issue facing Bell and Rogers customers (of which I am one). You will find on their home page a link to complaints and inquiries, so imagine my surprise when clicking on the link to complain, then selecting internet, I am presented with the following message

"You may not be aware that the Commission does not regulate the rates, quality of service or business practices for Internet Service Providers and cannot pursue complaints on these matters on your behalf."

Eh?!

You are advised to view the fact sheet (Internet)

"The CRTC does not regulate rates, quality of service issues or business practices for Internet Service Providers. *The market is competitive and consumers should shop around* to find the one that most suits their needs and budget. Consumers experiencing difficulties should contact their service providers quickly to resolve the problem."

Eh?!

So, I decide that I no longer wish to use Rogers as they throttle and shape my internet experience, so, checking the competition, I go with Bell, who, err, throttle and shape my internet experience. How about a 3rd party? Sorry! Due to Bell's practices, they are forced to provide a service which is throttled and shaped!

Eh?!

Of course, you could complain through the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, but I lost the will to live, when they wanted me to give them my phone number, user name, account number! No thanks!

Basically, I wanted to rant a little. Anyone else want to get something off their chest?


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Leave it to Canada to either:

Strangle industry with regulation

or

Let it become an unfriendly, uncompetitive monster through regulatory neglect!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

! wrote the CRTC when I was a kid, complaining that Rogers Cable was a monopoly in my area, but was not required to provide me with cable TV, despite the fact that we had to endure construction operations while the company laid a cable trunk line _in front of our house_. Their solution was that I could pay Rogers $1,000 to run the line to the house.

We got a taller antenna.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> ! wrote the CRTC when I was a kid, complaining that Rogers Cable was a monopoly in my area, but was not required to provide me with cable TV, despite the fact that we had to endure construction operations while the company laid a cable trunk line _in front of our house_. Their solution was that I could pay Rogers $1,000 to run the line to the house.


Did you also "accidentally" dig up and split their cable trunk in front of your house?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Did you also "accidentally" dig up and split their cable trunk in front of your house?


Believe me, I wanted to. I was furious. My dad wouldn't let me dig up the cable.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

nick24 said:


> "You may not be aware that the Commission does not regulate the rates, quality of service or business practices for Internet Service Providers and cannot pursue complaints on these matters on your behalf."
> 
> Eh?!


Seem pretty straight forward. You are complaining to the wrong people (the CRTC). What's the issue?



> "The CRTC does not regulate rates, quality of service issues or business practices for Internet Service Providers. *The market is competitive and consumers should shop around* to find the one that most suits their needs and budget. Consumers experiencing difficulties should contact their service providers quickly to resolve the problem."
> 
> Eh?!


Eh what? The market is competitive. Just because the market doesn't offer EXACTLY what you want, doesn't mean there isn't competition.



> So, I decide that I no longer wish to use Rogers as they throttle and shape my internet experience, so, checking the competition, I go with Bell, who, err, throttle and shape my internet experience. How about a 3rd party? Sorry! Due to Bell's practices, they are forced to provide a service which is throttled and shaped!
> 
> Eh?!


Throttled and shaped internet is the norm these days. We don't like it, but we have to suffer through it. With enough complaints and protests, it may change. Throttling and shaping doesn't mean there isn't competition though.



> Of course, you could complain through the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, but I lost the will to live, when they wanted me to give them my phone number, user name, account number! No thanks!


If you go through the process, the User Name and Account Number are OPTIONAL (that means you don't need to fill them in). They do probably want your name and phone number though so they can follow up on your complaint. If you don't want to give that information, then your complaint is meaningless. Be a man, grow a pair, and stand behind your complaint! Hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet while complaining to a government agency is kinda sad.



> Basically, I wanted to rant a little. Anyone else want to get something off their chest?


I just did.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

It's not about growing a pair and standing behind my complaint, I was commenting more about the frustration of the process. And for your information, I do have a pair and have contacted the appropriate people.

Thank you for your valued contribution.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

You could still complain to the CRTC about the Bell throttling as it does involve them. GAS and HSA, which the 3rd party DSL providers use to access the last mile, is regulated by the CRTC, Bell Canada General Tariff 5410.

Now the Competition Bureau doesn't think they are being anti-competitive because they are doing it to everyone equally. So far I haven't heard back from my second email to Minister Prentices office (cc'd to Liberal critic Brison as well)


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

guytoronto said:


> The market is competitive.


What a crock. It's a feeding frenzy between two monopolistic companies.

Which one are you an apologist for??


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

iJohnHenry said:


> What a crock. It's a feeding frenzy between two monopolistic companies.
> 
> Which one are you an apologist for??


What about TekSavvy? Oh...they ride on Bell's network, so you're upset that your speeds will still be throttled.

So what about the throttled speed makes you upset? You should be allowed to download as fast as you want?

What about a public road? Should you be allowed to drive as fast as you want to the video store or movie theatre? How is it any different on the Internet?


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Whoa Sparky.

I have used bitTorrent ONCE, for a South Park episode, as a test.

But I do believe in principle, unlike our two Internet providers.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> What about a public road? Should you be allowed to drive as fast as you want to the video store or movie theatre? How is it any different on the Internet?


It works in Germany - have you ever driven on the Autobahn?! 

I understand where you are coming from, and understand your arguments. I guess I should have better written my original post or added a comment along the lines of it seems strange that (unlike my home country of the UK) we are at the beck and call of 2 providers who pretty much have a strangle hold on the market, both of whom offer a service which is not as liberal as one would have liked.

(And yes, I agree, upon further review, the CRTC isn't the right place to complain, but with a name like they have, it sure seems like it should be!)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nick24 said:


> (And yes, I agree, upon further review, the CRTC isn't the right place to complain, but with a name like they have, it sure seems like it should be!)


Pray tell just what part of "Canadian RADIO TELEVISION Commission" do you see as covering or having authority over the internet?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

This is Canada right? 

The land of beavers and ninnies.


----------



## Ravindra Mohabeer (Oct 14, 2003)

SINC said:


> Pray tell just what part of "Canadian RADIO TELEVISION Commission" do you see as covering or having authority over the internet?


You missed the telecommunication portion (it's the hidden T - it should really read crttc but that's another story).

the internet isn't really a single thing, but a series of things. the 'thing' that the crtc is responsible for in this instance is the telecom part that connects the other things in the internet together. while it isn't 'common carriage' exactly, the problem is that the crtc has thrown its hands up on the whole internet thing because they are largely approaching it from the perspective of the internet being 'like' tv or radio and needing to have content regulation - which we all know is impossible. if it becomes a matter of access then they pass over to industry canada (or whatever they are called today). but then again, maybe they don't have any real grounds to do it because they primarily implement the broadcast act and telecommunication act. there really isn't an 'internet act' that sets out any guidelines.

that would be a good bill to try and lobby for. if the internet _is_ the way of the future, then why wouldn't we do anything about shaping how we think it should be permitted to grow in canada the way we do everything else. 

where is big government when we need them? (only half joking)


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

SINC said:


> Pray tell just what part of "Canadian RADIO TELEVISION Commission" do you see as covering or having authority over the internet?


CRTC Welcome Page
Welcome to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The CRTC is an independent agency responsible for regulating Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications systems.

Then go to> CRTC Complaints and Inquiries Form

Click either complain or inquiry. The drop down box allows you to select Internet as an option. Only then is the user told that the CRTC does not "regulate the rates, quality of service or business practices for Internet Service Providers and cannot pursue complaints on these matters on your behalf". 

This is what I find bizarre - I guess it's like going to a restaurant, looking at the menu, choosing your food, only to be told that the kitchen is closed.

What I was trying to say - admittedly very poorly - was that the Canadian internet market appears to be broken, and it's almost impossible for the consumer's voice to be heard by a governmental body which might have the power and authority to help.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I'm with GuyToronto on this one; I find it hilarious that everyone is crying because they are being throttled. Are you not receiving 10 times faster speeds than you received 5 years ago for the same price?

The other issue is of quality of service for ALL not just "You" (not speaking to anyone in general, just all those who are crying) If Rogers lets everyone download as much as they want, as fast as they want, they allow the creation of heavy traffic loads which is bad for "You" and everyone else as the infrastructure can't take the extra load, then everyone results in slow speeds.

If you aren't happy with throttling, go buy the maximum service companies are offering. Besides, most of what people are downloading these days (via bit torrent) are illegal! This is also funny; everyone is screaming publicly that they can't illegally download at super high speeds any more...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

How do you figure that people are downloading illegal content? What Canadian law are they breaking?



RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> If you aren't happy with throttling, go buy the maximum service companies are offering. Besides, most of what people are downloading these days (via bit torrent) are illegal! This is also funny; everyone is screaming publicly that they can't illegally download at super high speeds any more...


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

I think we all agree that the internet experience would be far more enjoyable for all if the country was laced with fibre optic lines, allowing data to be sent and received at greater speeds and capacity, so we could technologically catch up with our friends in smaller nations such as Korea, Sweden, France etc. Unfortunately, this will cost money, which it doesn't seem that Rogers, Bell et all are willing to spend, if if effects bottomline and shareholder profits. I can understand that.

What I do have a problem with is that the marketing guff pumped out by the big boys tells me that I can enjoy 7mbs speeds, but only the small print tells me that actually, it's up to 7mbs speeds. That being said, nearly all adverts hide the truth - look at airline tickets, cars, supermarket flyers to name but a few. Only when you read the fine print will you see that taxes and service charges are extra, you have to make a down payment of $7k before you can pay "only" $199 a month, or that the 10% discount only applies after you've spent $150. The devil is in the detail.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I'm with GuyToronto on this one; I find it hilarious that everyone is crying because they are being throttled. Are you not receiving 10 times faster speeds than you received 5 years ago for the same price?
> 
> The other issue is of quality of service for ALL not just "You" (not speaking to anyone in general, just all those who are crying) If Rogers lets everyone download as much as they want, as fast as they want, they allow the creation of heavy traffic loads which is bad for "You" and everyone else as the infrastructure can't take the extra load, then everyone results in slow speeds.
> 
> If you aren't happy with throttling, go buy the maximum service companies are offering. Besides, most of what people are downloading these days (via bit torrent) are illegal! This is also funny; everyone is screaming publicly that they can't illegally download at super high speeds any more...


Throttling and Download caps are two different issues. Throttling is really an issue of net neutrality and competition.

The Government is wrong when it says it is free competition and up to "market" to decide. It isn't. Right now the way it is in Canada it is up to the the Rogers , the Bells, the Videotrons to decide who gets what level of service. They control the flow of the "pipes". They decide who gets maximum throughput and who will be throttled, thus it isn't free competition because it isn't a level playing field. 

The Conservative approach to letting "free market forces" determine the market place of the internet is misguided when you have a couple of players, who are also everyone elses competitors, controlling and limiting your ability to compete within the same parameters.

Here is an example. You have a football league comprised of 10 teams two of whom get to use the whole width of the field when they have the ball. The other eight teams only get to use as much of the width of the field when the have the ball as the first two teams say they are allowed to use. Is that free and fair competition? Who do you think is going to win? That is currently the state of the internet market place in this country.

Sometimes you have to make rules so the bullies don't run the school yard and the rest of the kids get to have a fair chance to play on the swings too. Might isn't always right. I am for free enterprise, but it isn't free when there are monopolies in the mix, and that is when Government and regulations should step in and set some rules and boundaries that *everyone* has to abide by. Then it can be a free (remember freedom doesn't mean license to abuse) and fair internet.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Anyone I talk to who does heavy downloading is downloading bit torrents; and I've never heard of anyone downloading bit torrent freeware. Everyone I've ever talked to about bit torrent does so for cracked software, movies, tv shows, etc.; thus they are pirating which we all know is illegal. Granted there may be some legit bit torrent downloading taking place but I would guess it's less than %25.

I think the point was missed that throttling back speeds is used to give an equal service to everyone not just those who want to download heavily. They want to ensure the bandwidth is there for everyone. Now, that may be one part of course. The other being they want to charge you more money for the maximum package. The thing is, they are offering you a service. They can do what they want as long as it's advertised. And as long as all the major ISPs are in cahoots there is nothing you can do. It is up to the market to decide, it's just that the ISPs are not going to listen to what the market has to say.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Anyone I talk to who does heavy downloading is downloading bit torrents; and I've never heard of anyone downloading bit torrent freeware. Everyone I've ever talked to about bit torrent does so for cracked software, movies, tv shows, etc.; thus they are pirating which we all know is illegal. Granted there may be some legit bit torrent downloading taking place but I would guess it's less than %25.
> 
> I think the point was missed that throttling back speeds is used to give an equal service to everyone not just those who want to download heavily. They want to ensure the bandwidth is there for everyone. Now, that may be one part of course. The other being they want to charge you more money for the maximum package. The thing is, they are offering you a service. They can do what they want as long as it's advertised. And as long as all the major ISPs are in cahoots there is nothing you can do. It is up to the market to decide, it's just that the ISPs are not going to listen to what the market has to say.


No I'm sorry to say I think you misunderstand the difference between throttling and download caps. Throttling has nothing to do with providing equal service to everyone. Quite the contrary throttling has to do with the major players ( Bell, Rogers) maintaining their advantage in the market place.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Downloading and cracking software is different from downloading tv and movies. In Canada, the latter is legal if it's for your own use.




RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Anyone I talk to who does heavy downloading is downloading bit torrents; and I've never heard of anyone downloading bit torrent freeware. Everyone I've ever talked to about bit torrent does so for cracked software, movies, tv shows, etc.; thus they are pirating which we all know is illegal. Granted there may be some legit bit torrent downloading taking place but I would guess it's less than %25.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Downloading and cracking software is different from downloading tv and movies. In Canada, the latter is legal if it's for your own use.


I don't know the law behind this, but I agree. In my mind, what is the difference between me recording a show on PVR, VCR or DVD or recording it on a HD? I see this as one and the same - ie time-shifting (the phrase Sony used when broadcasters took them to court when the VCR first appeared). So, as long as I am capable of receiving a TV show, why should I not be able to view it via time-shifting? In my eyes, this is fair use.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Does anyone actually have throttling problems or are people just jumping on the bandwagon?
I downloaded four movies last night where my DVDs would no longer play; used BitTorrent and it was faster than ever. They were all done in a couple of hours, previously it took te better part of a day - but with BitTorrent, due to the nature of it, one never knows.

Maybe Bells approach is wrong. They shouldn't throttle people who generate so much traffic that they overload the facilities - they should just cut them off. 
After all, that's what happens when the voice circuits are overloaded - you get a fast busy and can't make a call.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Downloading and cracking software is different from downloading tv and movies. In Canada, the latter is legal if it's for your own use.


I am not so sure...in many cases someone either illegally acquired the copy to provide as a bit torrent; especially when the movie hasn't been released yet. Secondly, someone is providing it illegally (as it is no longer for their own use) so how can you use it legally? That's like buying a stolen car, legally putting plates on it, and saying what's the problem?

Now, if a television broadcaster set up a torrent on their site for you to get episodes; that's fine but I think some are moving away from downloading and making you view them on their web sites to avoid pirating.


----------



## Griz (Apr 2, 2008)

For all you folks that think traffic shaping is about P2P and download speeds (TorontoGuy especially!!!), think again.

The REAL issue here is not that I can't now download "Harry Potter and the Wheelchair fight in the Nursing Home" in a few years.

THE ISSUE that we should be concerned with is the slippery slope this presents. If Bell or anyone else can traffic shape, then they can choose and select which webpages or domains are available for viewing (get it yet?). This means, much like the ability to plug into a power outlet any blender you choose (Oster, GE, or one you made in your garage), the power outlet now will only accept "Bell approved products". 

Don't think they will do that? Then quite frankly you are naive and need to give your head a shake. They already do! If you go to an internet speed test site - guess what? That site gets a wide open pipe so they can fool you into thinking that your internet speed is fine. I'm not making this up either - investigate for yourself (and don't ask the ISP for crying out loud -duh? what do you think they'll say?). My wife worked for Bell - they feed crap to their phone shlepps as a regular practice that is entirely the opposite of what is really being done. If the phone shlepps don't know the truth, then all the more believable when they tell you.

This boils down to profit opportunity for a large corporation. Much like Telus blocked it's striking worker's website a while back. Soon all you will see is the propaganda saying "Bell is good, Bell is great, etc." any blogs, pages or sites that allow critism or promote a non-Bell (or partner's product will not be "let through").

THIS is what you are allowing to occur by doing nothing (not writing letters, etc.) and saying "Oh well, get used to it - market dictates, etc.).

Again, if you honestly believe that Bell will stop at throttling P2P traffic (or in this case ALL encrypted traffic) you are sorely mistaken! 

Want to iChat? Wan't to share a document? Want a videoconference? It won't happen if Bell has services to do this for you. They squeeze the pipe down to be ineffective anymore, and then you pay Bell 20 dollars to use their product or service over the internet.

GET IT YET?

GET IT?

Remember when the RCMP said they would only use Tazers in situations where a gun would only be used but they could use a Tazer instead? Try substituting all the people that have been Tazered in Canada last year with "got shot by police" instead. Wow!! What an outcry we'd have....despite the original assurances by those with a vested interest in "zapping you into compliance".

GET IT?

We're not even talking about public safety here either, we're talking about putting a large corporation in the position to protect it's own interests by squeezing out any room for competition to play.

This isn't about telling you how fast you can drive on the road (Torontoguy!). This is about telling you what BRAND OF CAR you can drive on their road! Or what colour. Or who you can give a ride to!

So quite frankly, if you've read this, and continue to shrug your shoulders and say "Meh - might as well get used to it". You don't deserve a computer, much less, you don't deserve to vote. Put a ring in your nose and link it the large corporation of your choice and hand them your wallet.

GET IT?
GET IT?

My God as Canadians we can be awfully naive and complacent sometimes.

As for the useless CRTC - if they say it's not their mandate to regulate the internet, then start writing letters to ensure that IT BECOMES THEIR MANDATE!

Or go back be being a plugged in sheep...

My bet is that most folks will sit and say "Baaaaaaaa!" We'll take what Bell dishes up to us and do nothing but gripe and bitch. We're Canadians after all right?


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

So, my upcoming switch to Teksavey will have no affect on Bell??

I'm just one guy, but that will speak louder then a missive sent to an uncaring beaurocrat.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I'm with GuyToronto on this one; I find it hilarious that everyone is crying because they are being throttled. Are you not receiving 10 times faster speeds than you received 5 years ago for the same price?


How soon we forget the bill increases!!! The Rogers service that I started off with a few years back was 5mbps, BUT I seem to remember paying 39.99 for it. Then of course came the letter, that since other ISPs are charging $45 for internet, well so are we, and Rogers upped the price to 44.99. For no other reason other than "other ISPs" were doing it. That's how competitive they are. Sure, juyst recently they've upgraded me from 5mbps to 7 mbps, but that was only recently. 

As for changing to someone else, unless you change everything that you have bundled your gonna get penalized.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Downloading and cracking software is different from downloading tv and movies. In Canada, the latter is legal if it's for your own use.


However is absolutely correct on this point and is not only tv and movies it is music as well, again only for personal use.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

HowEver said:


> Downloading and cracking software is different from downloading tv and movies. In Canada, the latter is legal if it's for your own use.


True, it's legal because the copyright board would rather collect levies than do the right thing than lobby the government to actually music downloading illegal.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

hayesk said:


> True, it's legal because the copyright board would rather collect levies than do the right thing than lobby the government to actually music downloading illegal.


..........and the interesting this is, I didn't know that until the last discussion we had on ehMac on this subject, that a levy is collected on recordable CDs but not recordable DVDs.
This at least explains why recordable DVDs are cheaper than recordable CDs.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> True, it's legal because the copyright board would rather collect levies than do the right thing than lobby the government to actually music downloading illegal.


Ain't gonna happen anytime soon, times are a changin' my friend. Check out nettwork.com, the Web site for the NettwerkMusicGroup which represents the likes of the Barenaked Ladies and Sarah Mclachlan, and they fully embrace the notion of music sharing and DRM free music. The business model (paradigm) that they propose is more along the lines of a subscription based model. They are not alone in the support and discussion that this direction is the inevitable path that music distribution will follow.

The genie is out of the bottle, no amount of litigation or legislation is going to put it back in.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

screature said:


> However is absolutely correct on this point and is not only tv and movies it is music as well, again only for personal use.


However is not correct in my view. Yes you can view tv and movies for personal use legally, but if the means in which you acquired it was not legal how can you argue it's ok? How so? Well if someone is distributing these movies and tvs hows then they aren't using it for their own use are they?

As for the major ISPs controlling content; THEY CAN! They are offering a service to you and can shape that service any way they want. We seem to take for granted the freedom we have. Some countries bounce back emails that have swearing in them; I recall reading that Singapore does this. If Rogers feel certain domains are used by hackers or spyware they can block it entirely; they have every right to, it's their service and they can do with it what they want. I'm not saying you have to like it but for whatever reasons they have they can do with it what they please.

If an ISP finds certain sites are used for illegal porn or child luring and such, they SHOULD block them.

At work, I have many sites blocked; same thing. I want to check my Webmail and can't. I can cry all I want and it isn't going to change anything. Work gives me access to the network of computers called the internet; ISPs do the same thing on a commercial level. Maybe I should call my Minister and tell them I want to view whatever I want at work...


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Griz, lovely rant. Not perfectly written but your thin edge of the wedge idea is right. What will they take away from us next; what new technology gets strangled at birth next; what other invasions of privacy will be permitted; will Skype work 6 months from now? It is getting slippery in here. (I'm sure both Bell and Rogers would love to do in Skype and the phone card companies!)

So BitTorrent is throttled so everyone goes back to FTP. FTP gets throttled. I want to legitimately update some of my development software, be it NetBeans from Sun or Xcode from Apple. Will it take 9 hours to download my development environment at the present throttling rates when my contact states (I've hidden the math here) that it should take about 20 minutes! I paid to get 20 minute service and I should get it.

RunTheWorldOnMac: It isn't the ISP's job to patrol the internet. Police forces should enforce the law. (Some international trade group or UN body specifically states that ISP's are not to be held responsible for the traffic going over their networks. Just like phone companies are not responsible for what you say on the phone.) When the Police have just cause for going after someone who is commiting a crime over the internet the ISP should cooperate fully. But we should not be considered guilty, or be monitored in anyway, until the forces of law and order have been given approval to monitor or catch someone on the web.

As for the services provided. Did you sign a contact that specifically outlined how your internet service can be throttled. My guess is no. Does your ISP have unilateral right to change your contract. My guess is no. Did your contract specifically state the centain protocols would not be supported over the web. My guess is no. 

This is more of a case of possible breach of contract then anything else.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

bgw said:


> This is more of a case of possible breach of contract then anything else.


You know, Rogers lost 20 million dollars in court over a misplaced comma in a contract.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Ouch


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I actually never signed any type of contract with Rogers...would be kinda surprised if most do. 80)

Anyways, there is a difference between a phone call between 2 people and granting wide open internet access. If I were an ISP I would certainly want to block child porn and such. True, the police should enforce but as an ISP I have an ethical duty to uphold and block such content. At the end of the day, they could be held liable if someone were to take it that far, more and more each day it looks like the time will come.

As for a company saying you can download their upgrade in 20 minutes; they could be telling you the truth but they can't determine all variables and thus your argument falls apart. If you are on dial-up is it still 20 minutes? I don't think so. They gaurentee they can stream it to you in that time but after that, they have no control.

We can argue this all day, I'd rather not, but when push comes to shove it's there service, their rules and they can pretty much do what they want. I don't see why the govt' would step in, on what grounds?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> However is not correct in my view. Yes you can view tv and movies for personal use legally, but if the means in which you acquired it was not legal how can you argue it's ok? How so? Well if someone is distributing these movies and tvs hows then they aren't using it for their own use are they?
> 
> As for the major ISPs controlling content; THEY CAN! They are offering a service to you and can shape that service any way they want. We seem to take for granted the freedom we have. Some countries bounce back emails that have swearing in them; I recall reading that Singapore does this. If Rogers feel certain domains are used by hackers or spyware they can block it entirely; they have every right to, it's their service and they can do with it what they want. I'm not saying you have to like it but for whatever reasons they have they can do with it what they please.
> 
> ...


What you think is not the issue, what is the issue is what is the law. First the Copyright Right Act states you do have the right to download such materials for personal use. A torrent does not constitute distribution, no one is "pushing" the content it is being pulled by the individual user. Check it out, you really should know the laws of your own country. 

Secondly ISP's do not have the right to throttle and shape web traffic to gain or maintain market dominance, check out the Competition Act if you don't believe me.

In fact no we aren't taking for granted our freedoms, we are saying we should fight to defend them. Just because someone else in the world has less freedom than we do doesn't make it alright for some multi-billion dollar company to come along and try and take away the freedoms we already have.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Secondly ISP's do not have the right to throttle and shape web traffic to gain or maintain market dominance, check out the Competition Act if you don't believe me.


That's water under the bridge.
The Competition Bureau has already ruled on that and as long as the throttling is done for all customers. it's permitted according to the Competition Act.

Next?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> What you think is not the issue, what is the issue is what is the law. First the Copyright Right Act states you do have the right to download such materials for personal use. A torrent does not constitute distribution, no one is "pushing" the content it is being pulled by the individual user.


As I understand the law, downloading for personal use is not illegal but uploading is since you down own the copyright.
With BitTorrent you do both - the uploading part is illegal, the downloading part is not.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

My calculations are based on the service I got two weeks ago. It is now faster for me to download NeoOffice by FTP then by BitTorrent! Are we all going to put up with Bell's activities when they throttle FTP? What if they discover that HTTP is the heaviest used protocol and they throttle that?

Yes, they can throttle anything they want. But I didn't sign an agreement with a ISP that told me that certain services would be throttled. Bell changed things on my ISP and my ISP is passing the problem to me because it is beyond their control.

There is a simple principal here: meet your contractual agreements. Bell, as far I can see, isn't doing this with my ISP and indirectly me. Ehmac user krs has spotted some flaws in the agreements between the ISPs and Bell. The CRTC will have to rule on these.

I think we can agree that if a ISP become aware of illegal activity over their network they have a duty to inform the police. I don't know how this could be accomplished as they shouldn't be inspecting the data travelling across their network.

The responsiblity of reporting illegal activity resides with the public; anyone seeing illegal activity on the internet is duty bound to report it. The police should be pursuing all illegal activity over the net through any legitimate vehicle available to them. Web hosting services should require in their contracts that any illegal activity on their servers will be shut down. Maybe their contracts should specify that they have the right, with the strictest privacy and nondisclosure, to view all material on their servers. Anything illegal will be reported to the police.

I hope I'm being articulate enough to make sense! :lmao:

Oh, by the way somewhere on the DSLReports TekSavvy forum Bell is quoted as promising Teksavvy (or the other 3rd party ISP's) that they wouldn't be throttling 3rd party ISP's. They were only going to throttle their customers! Unfortunately I do not have a link to support this.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Thanks KRS!

As for "What you think is not the issue, what is the issue is what is the law. First the Copyright Right Act states you do have the right to download such materials for personal use. A torrent does not constitute distribution, no one is "pushing" the content it is being pulled by the individual user. Check it out, you really should know the laws of your own country."

The copyright act states you can download illegally distributed material? Really? Where does it say this? If I rip a dvd and package it for distribution as a bit torrent or zip or whatever this is illegal as it is no longer for personal use. We call this pirating. Even more so, when a packaged movie hasn't even been released to dvd yet. By your train of thought it's legal to download this content as long as it's for personal use? Really?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> As I understand the law, downloading for personal use is not illegal but uploading is since you down own the copyright.
> With BitTorrent you do both - the uploading part is illegal, the downloading part is not.


No, it has to be via distribution, in otherwords you would have to lay out a welcome mat and say I have X files for download come and get them. With a torrent, as I would suspect you are aware you are merely either leeching or seeding a torrent. The original poster of a torrent could be seen to be breaking the law, but that has yet to be tested in court.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Thanks KRS!
> 
> As for "What you think is not the issue, what is the issue is what is the law. First the Copyright Right Act states you do have the right to download such materials for personal use. A torrent does not constitute distribution, no one is "pushing" the content it is being pulled by the individual user. Check it out, you really should know the laws of your own country."
> 
> The copyright act states you can download illegally distributed material? Really? Where does it say this? If I rip a dvd and package it for distribution as a bit torrent or zip or whatever this is illegal as it is no longer for personal use. We call this pirating. Even more so, when a packaged movie hasn't even been released to dvd yet. By your train of thought it's legal to download this content as long as it's for personal use? Really?


Read the Act. P2P sharing is legal in Canada.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

bgw said:


> My calculations are based on the service I got two weeks ago. It is now faster for me to download NeoOffice by FTP then by BitTorrent! Are we all going to put up with Bell's activities when they throttle FTP? What if they discover that HTTP is the heaviest used protocol and they throttle that?
> 
> Yes, they can throttle anything they want. But I didn't sign an agreement with a ISP that told me that certain services would be throttled. Bell changed things on my ISP and my ISP is passing the problem to me because it is beyond their control.


What is so bad about FTP? Perhaps you all are addicted to the "Bit Torrent" craze.  

Did you sign a contract that said they wouldn't throttle? Or better yet, did you actually sign a contract? I find it hard to believe anyone in this day and age really signs anything anymore; save for the banks and such. I never signed a contract, meaning an actual signature with my cell, home phone, or internet providers...

If in fact TechSavvy put in stipulation that says Bell will not throttle this protocol and that protocol then I would say they have a valid case. Then again, we are talking about Bell here and Bell could easily enough cancel the contract with TechSavvy...I'm sure there is some type of clause that allows them to do so....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

krs said:


> The Competition Bureau has already ruled on that and as long as the throttling is done for all customers. it's permitted according to the Competition Act.


I wonder how many trucks of money travelled from Bell headquarters to the various members of the "Competition Bureau"... Looks like a clear case of payola to me.

Contracts are just that, contracts. Binding agreements that can only be opened by the assent of both parties, unless the contract can be proven to be illegal in some manner.

This has less to do with capping, because none of the providers actually guaranteed a set transfer amount - but because of the throttling, which was (and is) not a part of the contracted agreement. 

Movies and TV shows are distributed by Torrents, for a server it is the most efficient protocol to use because it spreads the loading out over a network. Torrents are not illegal, it is just a protocol, like uucp, ftp, httpget, or one of the streaming protocols. The CBC, NBC and Universal Studios are experimenting, with many more broadcasters to follow. Also, it is a protocol that is entirely compatible with the new "MESH" networking that is being used in many countries, and is available now on the OLPC XO machine.

People use torrents for illegal purposes, but that doesn't mean torrent clients or the use of P2P software is illegal. If we persecute the users of torrents, we should also persecute the users of automobiles because, even though the vast majority of car users use them for entirely legal purposes, there are those who use them for illegal purposes, like trafficing, kidnapping, and murder.

Bell and Rogers are only doing these things because they can not find any other way of nickel and diming their customers. Perhaps their network backbone is not up to snuff, perhaps they are too cheap to make key investments, perhaps they promised all of this "High Speed" but found that they can only provide "Mediocre Speed". None of that matters, except for the fact that that have ripped off their customers in an underhanded manner, by making illegal changes to contracts without the consent of the customer, and engaged in gratuitous acts of corruption with those who are supposed to "regulate".


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> The original poster of a torrent could be seen to be breaking the law, but that has yet to be tested in court.


What's the difference?
You're saying that a person who obtained a copy of a movie via BitTorrents is free to 'seed' it and that's perfectly legal but a person who obtained a copy by buying a DVD and makes it available via BitTorrent may be breaking the law?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Read the Act. P2P sharing is legal in Canada.


To me P2P file sharing and BitTorrent are fundamentally different.

Did bill C-60 ever get passed? That tries to address this issue to some degree.
Bill C-60: An Act to amend the Copyright Act (LS-512E)


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> What is so bad about FTP? Perhaps you all are addicted to the "Bit Torrent" craze.


I don't understand the FTP comment either - I think that is just a red herring.

I will take FTP any day over BitTorrent - much faster, more reliable.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> None of that matters, except for the fact that that have ripped off their customers in an underhanded manner, by making illegal changes to contracts without the consent of the customer, and engaged in gratuitous acts of corruption with those who are supposed to "regulate".


I haven't seen TekSavvy or anyone else whip out a contract that demonstrates what Bell is doing violates a written agreement.
And even if that did exist - what does that have to do with the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act?

I don't like throttling anymore than the guy/girl, but wishful thinking isn't getting anyone anywhere.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> What's the difference?
> You're saying that a person who obtained a copy of a movie via BitTorrents is free to 'seed' it and that's perfectly legal but a person who obtained a copy by buying a DVD and makes it available via BitTorrent may be breaking the law?


Yes because it is a matter of distribution. If I allow you to take data from my hard drive you are merely accessing what is there, I have not solicited you to do so. If I put up a sign and say come and get this file that would constitute distribution. If I seed a torrent I wasn't the originator of the torrent and make an offer of availability of the file. I downloaded the file and left "the door open" but I didn't advertise it as being so. Additionally the access is only maintained as a seed if I don't close the door after I am finished leeching.

Kind of crazy I know but it is along the lines of how prostitution works. To be paid for sex is not illegal to solicit sex for money is what is illegal.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

When making your arguments please separate out the protocol from what's being carried on it. There is nothing illegal about BitTorrent.

Throttling BitTorrent just because its a torrent is like choking the money supply just because 95% of criminals use money in their illegal transactions.

I referenced FTP because if it becomes very popular it may be next in line for throttling. If the ISP's can throttle one protocol they can throttle any protocol! And if they are not beaten back this time they have set two ugly precedents:

1)They can throttle any protocol they like at any time on any whim.
2) We as members of the public (or third party ISPs) have no recourse or rights to alter the situation. Even if we have an agreement with a ISP not to restrict certain protocols.

_How do you like them cookies!_


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> As for the major ISPs controlling content; THEY CAN! They are offering a service to you and can shape that service any way they want. We seem to take for granted the freedom we have. Some countries bounce back emails that have swearing in them; I recall reading that Singapore does this. If Rogers feel certain domains are used by hackers or spyware they can block it entirely; they have every right to, it's their service and they can do with it what they want. I'm not saying you have to like it but for whatever reasons they have they can do with it what they please.
> 
> If an ISP finds certain sites are used for illegal porn or child luring and such, they SHOULD block them.


What if Bell did the same with phone lines? What if they decided to raise the rate 10 fold? The problem is when a company provides an essential service they have to be regulated because companies will surely abuse that power over time without any sort of checks and balances. There are laws to prevent monopolies, and in this case there should be laws to regulate duopolies.

As to your second point, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where is the line drawn as to what is good or bad? Does scat porn performed by adutlts qualify? What about info on growing marajuana or how to create other drugs? How about assisted suicides?Who decides what is right or wrong? you? me? George Bush? 

People really need to be wary of giving away their freedoms to corporations. They NEVER have the publics interest at hand. Only the bottom line.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Having worked for a large corporation and then worked for a small company in exactly the same line of business I agree. As much as I dislike regulation, a small dose of it can really unclog markets and help consumers (and possibly companies alike).


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

krs said:


> I will take FTP any day over BitTorrent - much faster, more reliable.


FTP is faster because it is a direct transfer from point to point. However, FTP is not "reliable" because it relies entirely on TCP/IP, which has no error detection or correction. This is by design, because TCP/IP was developed along side uucp. Since uucp had all of the features required for asychronous transfers, including the need to use it on the noisy and low quality lines, it is more robust. TCP/IP on the other hand was intended to be run on networks which had hardware error correction and detection, and ftp was the protocol used to transfer files on such networks.

Over a clean line, or on links that have hardware error detection and correction, with no induced errors, ftp is faster. But uucp is much more robust because it will keep trying until the packets are transfered without error. FTP will bail out on the first error. (Though this is ameliorated by the use of FTP software that actually does not follow the rules of FTP, but rather, a protocol that looks more like torrent clients, with full error detection and correction. They just look like FTP on the surface.)

Torrent software was not developed to be fast (FTP or HTTPGet is perhaps five times or more faster than torrent protocols); but feature full error correction, allow for transfers that are interrupted or broken. For instance, I could FTP a file, but if it is not fully downloaded, and I move from this hotspot to another, the download dies (well, unless an FTP package is used which looks like FTP on the surface, but is actually more torrent like below); while with a torrent, the client will assess the health of the file segments and resume the download.

Perhaps the idea of torrents, and P2P software in general, was to allow for the transfer of illegal or pirated files without being detected; but they actually hark back to a time when reliable links between machines were rare, when dropped carriers and crashed networks were the normal state of affairs.

FTP may be faster, but if the age of Internet brownouts comes to fruition, one will actually need to use torrents (or something of that nature) in order to sustain downloads in a degraded and less reliable environment.

What's old is new again - though perhaps not called ZModem anymore...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Lots to talk about...

1. An internet connection is not an essential service; food, water, ok, maybe a phone line but not internet.

2. I'm not disputing the fact that using the bit torrent protocol is legal for file sharing but when used to distribute illegal matter that's where the problem lies, regardless of the prototcol use.

3. As for you prostitution example, you ARE soliciting. Do you not name the file, or tag a remark to explain what it is someone is about to download? Sounds like you just have a whole bunch of files on your hard drive that have absolutley no description and you just let people download them.

I find it funny how you are all trying to justify it so badly; I take it you guys have many movies and such acquired through bit torrents? 80)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Lots to talk about...
> 
> 1. An internet connection is not an essential service; food, water, ok, maybe a phone line but not internet.
> 
> ...


No not when you seed a torrent nothing of the kind. If you post a torrent, then yes.

It isn't a matter of justifying anything it is a matter of being aware of how things actually work.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Yes because it is a matter of distribution. If I allow you to take data from my hard drive you are merely accessing what is there, I have not solicited you to do so. If I put up a sign and say come and get this file that would constitute distribution. If I seed a torrent I wasn't the originator of the torrent and make an offer of availability of the file. I downloaded the file and left "the door open" but I didn't advertise it as being so. Additionally the access is only maintained as a seed if I don't close the door after I am finished leeching.
> 
> Kind of crazy I know but it is along the lines of how prostitution works. To be paid for sex is not illegal to solicit sex for money is what is illegal.


Sounds like this discussion can go on for ever.

I don't agree with your analysis at all - with BitTorrents it's not that I go out and check everyone hard drive to see if they have stored what I want and then access it (ha, ha, wouldn't that be fun!), you actually did put up a sign saying I have the file you are looking for (or parts of it) and come and get it, my door is open (ie I'm seeding). So by your own definition this constitutes distribution.
The fact that you can close the door at anytime is immaterial - so can any website - I don't see how that enters the equation.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

bgw said:


> Even if we have an agreement with a ISP not to restrict certain protocols.


We do ???????????
Does anyone have an agreement with an ISP not to throttle BitTorrent or P2P or anything else?

I'd like to see that.

All the contracts I have ever seen don't even guarantee you a minimum download speed, much less a guarantee to not throttle any specific protocol.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Lots to talk about...
> 
> 1. An internet connection is not an essential service; food, water, ok, maybe a phone line but not internet.


I would think that access to some form of mass communication would be an essential service. Be that TV or Radio. As such, both the world wide web, and the internet should be considered essential services.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Sounds like this discussion can go on for ever.
> 
> I don't agree with your analysis at all - with BitTorrents it's not that I go out and check everyone hard drive to see if they have stored what I want and then access it (ha, ha, wouldn't that be fun!), you actually did put up a sign saying I have the file you are looking for (or parts of it) and come and get it, my door is open (ie I'm seeding). So by your own definition this constitutes distribution.
> The fact that you can close the door at anytime is immaterial - so can any website - I don't see how that enters the equation.


No when seeding you aren't putting up a sign you are merely part of the swarm that has the file. The original torrent is the point of distribution and thus solicitation. You need to know the case history in Canada. Here it is in brief:

Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday (March 31, 2004), handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers.

Canadian record labels had asked the court for authorization to identify 29 alleged file swappers in that country, in preparation for suing them for copyright infringement, much as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued more than 1500 people in America.

But the judge denied that request. In a far-ranging decision, the court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online appeared to be legal in Canada.

A judge in Canada rules that sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal, a major setback to the record industry.

The ruling affects only Canada, but it could have wider repercussions if it stands. The recording industry has filed hundreds of lawsuits against file swappers to lessen the amount of copyrighted material on networks such as Kazaa and Morpheus.

"This has certainly stalled (the record industry's) current round of litigation, and...thrown into doubt whether there is infringement at all," said Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor who closely follows Canadian copyright issues.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), which brought the case, said it did not agree with the judge's ruling.

"We are reviewing the decision received today from the trial court and expect to appeal it," CRIA General Counsel Richard Pfohl said in a statement. "In our view, the copyright law in Canada does not allow people to put hundreds or thousands of music files on the Internet for copying, transmission and distribution to millions of strangers."

The ruling affects only Canada, but it could have wider repercussions if it stands. The U.S.-based RIAA has filed hundreds of lawsuits against file swappers in hopes of lessening the amount of copyrighted material available for download through peer-to-peer networks such as Kazaa or Morpheus.

But many studies, including one this week from professors at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have noted that computer users on peer-to-peer networks often download material across national borders.

Canada's debate over file swapping flared last December, when the country's Copyright Board, which regulates intellectual property issues, ruled that downloading songs from a peer-to-peer network for personal use--but not necessarily uploading--appeared to be legal.

The regulators cited a long-standing rule in Canada, in which most copying for personal use was allowed. To repay artists and record labels for revenue lost by this activity, the government imposes a fee on blank tapes, CDs and even hard disk-based MP3 players such as Apple Computer's iPod, and distributes that revenue to copyright holders.

At the time, CRIA attorneys said they did not agree with the Copyright Board's decision, and that they expected courts to rule differently. Last month, they launched the first step in filing lawsuit against alleged music sharers, seeking authorization from the courts to identify 29 Net users at various Internet service providers (ISPs) around the country.

In his ruling Wednesday, Judge Konrad von Finckenstein rejected that request on several grounds. In part, he said the recording industry had not presented evidence linking the alleged file swapping to the ISP subscribers that was strong enough to warrant breaking through critical privacy protections.

But he also questioned whether CRIA had a copyright case at all.

With respect to downloading, the judge accepted the Copyright Board's early decision almost without comment. But he went further, citing a recent Supreme Court decision to say that making music available online also appeared to be legal.

In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled.

Finckenstein said the same rationale should apply to peer-to-peer users.

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."

Ottawa's Geist said this appeared to make uploading itself legal as well, since a peer-to-peer user--like a library--would be entitled to assume that the person on the other side of the connection was acting legally, since downloading was also legal in Canada.

The decision was hailed by Net activists on both sides of the border.

"I think it is a big victory for technology and the Internet and all the people who use technology and the Internet in Canada," said Howard Knopf, an attorney who works with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa. "The court accepted that copyright legislation has to be read as it is, not as CRIA would like it to be."

The decision is likely to spur more legislative action in Canada, however. The country has not yet ratified World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties that contain more specific language saying that only copyright holders or their licensees have the ability to make copyrighted works available to others.

In the United States, the provisions of that treaty were implemented in the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act. CRIA has lobbied hard to have a similar bill introduced in Canada, but without success yet. However, the Canadian government has recently indicated that a WIPO implementation bill could be introduced and passed by the end of this year.

This precident still stands today, the Conservative Government was expected to introduce amendments to the Copyright Act in 2007 It was expected to have much stronger protections for copyright owners, including some provisions similar to the American DMCA. However, due to massive public outcry in the days leading up to the bill's expected introduction, the government decided not to introduce it. It is not known whether the bill will be introduced at a later date or, if so, whether it will be modified to give consumers more rights than were expected in the original bill.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> FTP is faster because it is a direct transfer from point to point. However, FTP is not "reliable" because it relies entirely on TCP/IP, which has no error detection ......


Facts - facts - facts....we need to stick to facts:



> The Internet
> 
> In a typical TCP/IP stack, error detection is performed at multiple levels:
> 
> ...


As to "reliability" of FTP - it depends how one defines it.
I find FTP more reliable than BitTorrent because the file comes from a single source, a website, that is unlikely to be shut down at the whim of some individual; BitTorrents on the other hand are seeded by any number of individuals, anyone of them could shut their seed down at any minute and you're not even sure they all collectively have all the bits available to make up the complete file without some digging.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> No when seeding you aren't putting up a sign you are merely part of the swarm that has the file. The original torrent is the point of distribution and thus solicitation. You need to know the case history in Canada. Here it is in brief:


This case history is all wonderful but it specifically applies to music and nothing else.
The exemption in the Copyright act is for music, not movies or videos or anything else that is being downloaded.
That is what bill C-60 was supposed to address.

As to BitTorrents - What do you mean there is only one single point of distribution; when you download a BitTorrent file you download from many seeders simultaneously and directly from their computers, not from some single point of distribution.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

I guess irony sure can be ironic...(which film have I taken this from?)

I started off this thread talking about the CRTC. Who is the chair of this group? Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein. Guess which person judged that file sharing in Canada is legal? Judge Konrad von Finckenstein! (see post 62 above)


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

nick24 said:


> I guess irony sure can be ironic...(which film have I taken this from?)
> 
> I started off this thread talking about the CRTC. Who is the chair of this group? Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein. Guess which person judged that file sharing in Canada is legal? Judge Konrad von Finckenstein! (see post 62 above)


I don't understand your point.
Finckenstein was also the former head of the Competition Bureau.

Does all that really matter?
The file sharing case was only about music and that is clearly allowed under current Canadian legislation. 
Judges don't create the law and neither does the Supreme Court of Canada.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Question??

Has Finckenstein ever been elected....to anything??

I rest my case.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

iJohnHenry said:


> Question??
> 
> Has Finckenstein ever been elected....to anything??
> 
> I rest my case.


Huh? What does being elected have to do with anything?


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Well, for a start he is totally unaccountable to the public he is supposed to serve.

He may be a judge because he out-lasted his peers. Perhaps we will never know.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

polywog said:


> I would think that access to some form of mass communication would be an essential service. Be that TV or Radio. As such, both the world wide web, and the internet should be considered essential services.


:lmao: What colour is the sky in your reality? The Internet as an essential service? :lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> This case history is all wonderful but it specifically applies to music and nothing else.
> The exemption in the Copyright act is for music, not movies or videos or anything else that is being downloaded.
> That is what bill C-60 was supposed to address.
> 
> As to BitTorrents - What do you mean there is only one single point of distribution; when you download a BitTorrent file you download from many seeders simultaneously and directly from their computers, not from some single point of distribution.


No it didn't apply only to music. The case was filed by the CRIA (thus the connection to music) the ruling in the case applied to copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks, that is why in the case history it is stated as being a "a far-ranging decision". The decision set a greater precedent for "file sharing of copyrighted materials". 

The original torrent is the point of distribution because without it the seeds and leeches cannot exist. It is also the point of distribution because it is the sole source of solicitation. Judge von Finckenstein set the parameters of distribution in his ruling as being " a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying" In a torrent the only one who does this is the originator of the torrent. Obviously there are many people making the file available for download, the question is who is actively the distributor i.e soliciting or advertising the file for download.

Bill C-60 never went past first reading. The Conservatives were to table a Bill last year to bring about tougher copyright legislation, but it was pulled because it was too far ranging (imposing heavy levies on the sale of MP3 players i.e. iPods etc.) in it's application and was pulled due to public outcry.

So the legal and judicial frame work is currently the same now as it was in 2004 when Judge von Finckenstein made his precedent setting ruling. Until further court challenges are made this is the framework we live under in this country. Where for all practical purposes peer-to-peer file sharing is legal. Why do you think there have been no significant challenges since 2004, because based on the current legislation and Judge von Finckenstein's precedent, there is little chance that anyone wanting to litigate the legality of file swapping in Canada would win and the cost of loosing such a challenge would be all too high.

For the current situation to change in Canada there needs to be new legislation and based on the Conservatives retreat, we are probably some time away from that. Probably not until there is a majority Parliament and that could be a way off.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

I made up this silly document that outlines a typical future user ISP agreement. It really is silly and not too good. Some of you may be able to give it a real satrical bite. 

Please remember that this is a JOKE!  :lmao: 

Sometimes I even like to see the lighter side of things. If you like it, work it into something really entertaining!


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> :lmao: What colour is the sky in your reality? The Internet as an essential service? :lmao:


The original poster suggested that maybe telephone was an essential service. You didn't seem to disagree. Guess the millions of VoIP subscribers don't rate the same as the traditional POTS line subscribers? 

The internet existed far before you and your sarcasm showed up to spoil it. I wasn't referring to the community you add little or nothing to. I wasn't just talking about the little intarweb pages you browse with bated breath, hoping someone will make a comment that you can respond to with what you probably consider to be wit. The internet, its infrastructure, is a reliable and redundant means of mass communication. It can be accessed by traditional phone lines, HAM radio, cable, cellphone or satellite. 

Likewise, the world wide web contains a wealth of timely important information. I don't mean the Tuesday "Apple Store is Down" ehMac posts. Weather, flight and road statuses. The list is endless in the long run.

Where would you be without the internet? That "mean guy at the end of the street in every neighbourhood?" The one who " Sometimes, if you listen to him, you might hear a nugget of wisdom." The former, for sure. As for the latter, you might think you have some wisdom to share, but in the end you're just a self-important blowhard.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

krs said:


> Facts - facts - facts....we need to stick to facts:


Of course, the "facts" that you pointed at are for TCP/IP stacks that are running on top of Ethernet. That is, in fact, hardware error detection and correction strategies that are inherent in ETHERNET, not in TCP/IP. TCP/IP is a routing protocol, not a file transfer protocol (which is why FTP runs on top of TCP/IP). Asynchronous connections only "emulate" ethernet, either through slip or ppp. So the fact is, TCP/IP by itself, with FTP as the transfer protocol, is entirely open to errors because it has no facility to detect errors. This is done by the hardware layer. The only TCP/IP frames that would be rejected are malformed ones that are of the wrong length and checksum - but the protocol itself can not do anything except reject bad packets. Hence, FTP is more open to errors if hardware error correction fails. uucp was always better at getting data through, especially on poor linkages between machines.



> I find FTP more reliable than BitTorrent because the file comes from a single source, a website, that is unlikely to be shut down at the whim of some individual; BitTorrents on the other hand are seeded by any number of individuals, anyone of them could shut their seed down at any minute and you're not even sure they all collectively have all the bits available to make up the complete file without some digging.


FTP will quit a transfer upon receipt of an error, unless the error is detected and corrected by the hardware (of which the FTP protocol has no idea). It may come from one source, and on a good connection, will transmit faster than a torrent. But that does not mean that it is a good protocol to use in many circumstances. For instance, I could ftp software on my system, but if the modem hangs up for some reason, the transfer is aborted and I would have to start again. On a small file, this is less of a nuisance; but on a large file, it is a pretty serious waste of time and bandwidth. FTP also requires the originating site to run an FTP server; which is perhaps fine for sites that have large collections of files, but not so good for peer to peer networking, which is generally simpler in nature. Plus, very few "web sites" actually use FTP to transmit files - they normally use the HTTPGet function, which is a different, and even more fragile beast - but so much easier to code into a web site because it is native to HTML, whereas ftp is a Unix/Linux command.

Torrents, on the other hand, are used for distributing the load of serving a file over any number of machines, as well as being a simple way of originating and regulating a peer to peer file transfer. Of course the files are pulled from different seeders, as well as different peers, this is it's advantage. Because of the precarious nature of such a strategy - torrent engines are very robust in both file transfer and in error detection and correction. As I stated before, ftp will only work between two machines with set IP addressing; while a torrent will transmit even through changes in one, two or all of the IP addresses. Speeds are sacrificed in order to increase the durability of transmittal, even through major disconnections and upsets.

Which one is better? One is not better than the other in absolute terms, they serve different purposes. FTP is entirely adequate on "stable" connections with good error correcting equipment; while torrents will perform better in more unstable environments, like when one is using WiFi, or on connections with long latency periods, for files of very long length, or on networks where the distribution of the workload across a larger number of machines can keep a main server from bogging down and crashing.

That said, the torrent scheme is entirely valid, and actually closely mimics the underlying strategy to the packet disassembly, routing, and reassembly inherent in TCP/IP. And if you really think that an FTP transfer will "directly" send a file from one machine to yours on a singular path without passing through a number of machines - you are fooling yourself. The packets for any file will be passed through any number of machines, and perhaps, even have bounced back and forth across the continent (or around the world), since packets will attempt to be routed by the "next fastest way", rather than "the most direct way" or "the path with fewest bounces".

None of this justified why places like Bell continue to advertise "High Speed Internet" where one can watch movies galore - while at the same time choke back the service so much that one will be lucky to be able to watch two movies in a month and read email once without going over the caps or running into major throttling issues.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Polywog, it seems you have been waiting for the right time to attack? I don't see any relevance in your post whatsoever. We all know there is no such thing as the internet, that it is just a series of nodes (generally servers/computers) with information to share. 

To gain access to this network via a "computer" we buy access from an ISP. Last time I checked Rogers didn't have a suitable HAM radio or telegraph plan so I decided to stick with the basic internet plan. What we are discussing is the access to the commercial internet that everyday users see. This is the connectivity that ISPs provide; not to some 50 year old LAN the army used before we knew computers existed, not to some 75 year old switchboard. Access to those "intarweb pages" as you put it is exactly what we are talking about!

Please spare us you attempt at a deep philosophical attack on what your definition of the internet is and how it should be used. The internet is a wide open discussion and can be approached however ones wants....even deeply philosophical.


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Polywog, it seems you have been waiting for the right time to attack? I don't see any relevance in your post whatsoever. We all know there is no such thing as the internet, that it is just a series of nodes (generally servers/computers) with information to share.
> 
> To gain access to this network via a "computer" we buy access from an ISP. Last time I checked Rogers didn't have a suitable HAM radio or telegraph plan so I decided to stick with the basic internet plan. What we are discussing is the access to the commercial internet that everyday users see. This is the connectivity that ISPs provide; not to some 50 year old LAN the army used before we knew computers existed, not to some 75 year old switchboard. Access to those "intarweb pages" as you put it is exactly what we are talking about!
> 
> Please spare us you attempt at a deep philosophical attack on what your definition of the internet is and how it should be used. The internet is a wide open discussion and can be approached however ones wants....even deeply philosophical.


It's (not) nice to see that mean-spirited attack is still very much a part of the ehmac crowd - at least when it comes to the usual suspects who troll its pages, looking for the least bit of dissent; anything with which they can "stir the pot." Being mean-spirited does not give your argument any traction.
When we're talking about internet access in Canada, the principle reason for consumers to be upset, is that there is collusion (tacit, at best) between the only two providers who sell (or resell) internet access. They have their respective monopolies because we - the taxpayers; the citizens, have given them through CRTC regulation. They're mandated to resell because the CRTC has recognized that that their respective monopolies can preclude ANY competition in the Canadian market. If Bell and Rogers only shaped their own traffic, then consumers would have a choice. Consumers could choose TEKSAVVY - or any other company that piggy-backs on bell or Rogers - and receive service that isn't subject to traffic shaping. Now that Bell and Rogers will shape other traffic on network time/bandwidth they resell - consumers have NO choice but to accept what they offer. Again, the central point in this argument is that we have GIVEN them their respective monopolies through CRTC regulation, but tried to mitigate that generous (pandora's box-like-gift) by mandating they resell to smaller fish. There never was a "hands off" approach to our market. Furthermore, the Canadian government - over the years - has invested millions into the infrastructure of the internet because it is becoming an integral part of how our society works. It's public infrastructure that Bell and Rogers have access to. How reasonable is it that these companies should then use their monopolies to collude on price/bandwidth to squash competition and shape the traffic of their competitors? When do Canadians get a payback on their investment? Do we really have a choice, when those choices are contrained to 2 options that are the same? Do we really want Bell and Rogers to have such tight control over access to a medium that we've invested so much in?; that we own?; that has become so important to our economy, democratic expression, and personal life of Canadians? No. The CRTC has regulated in the past (for this reason), and they should regulate in the future as well. The problems we have should be corrected by the CRTC, for the benefit of all Canadians - not just Bell and Rogers shareholders. 
I can't wait for the insults...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> For the current situation to change in Canada there needs to be new legislation and based on the Conservatives retreat, we are probably some time away from that. Probably not until there is a majority Parliament and that could be a way off.


So if I put all this into perspective - and I certainly haven't studied this in any depth as you seem to have - the current copyright *legislation* specifically exempts music copying under specific circumstances (as I have read in the legislation) and Finkelstein's ruling essentially broadened that.
Basically under the premise "If it's not explicitly forbidden, it's allowed".


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> So the fact is, TCP/IP by itself, with FTP as the transfer protocol, is entirely open to errors because it has no facility to detect errors. This is done by the hardware layer. The only TCP/IP frames that would be rejected are malformed ones that are of the wrong length and checksum - but the protocol itself can not do anything except reject bad packets.


We are moving a mile off the original subject of this thread, so I will just make a short comment and leave it at that.
The way I read your statement above is that incorrect TCP/IP frames can be detected and discarded and retransmission requested. That's why I specifically wrote "error *detection*" not correction. That TCP/IP does nothing about detecting or correcting inherent errors in the payload is obvious and not expected, other means are required to handle that as you pointed out.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

polywog said:


> The original poster suggested that maybe telephone was an essential service. You didn't seem to disagree. Guess the millions of VoIP subscribers don't rate the same as the traditional POTS line subscribers?


No, definitely not, not as far as I am concerned.

To me an essential service is one that is provided to protect live and limb of an individual.
A POTS line falls into that category because it is probably the prime method to call for help 911 - police - ambulance - whatever.
VoIP certainly doesn't fall into that category, I don't even know if VoIP routes 911 calls.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fuzzyface said:


> The problems we have should be corrected by the CRTC, for the benefit of all Canadians - not just Bell and Rogers shareholders.
> I can't wait for the insults...


Nicely worded post.
But it seems to me the issue is beyond current CRTC jurisdiction and needs to be addressed by parliament.


----------



## Ravindra Mohabeer (Oct 14, 2003)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Please spare us you attempt at a deep philosophical attack on what your definition of the internet is and how it should be used. The internet is a wide open discussion and can be approached however ones wants....even deeply philosophical.


I suspect that access to the Internet becomes 'essential' when one can no longer access certain things (e.g. tax forms from a university) without downloading them from a secure web server. Or perhaps when more and more providers of goods and services abandon telephone interaction and/or brick and mortar shops. Is it essential like water? Of course not. Is it essential like roads that connect cities and inform the shape of the society in which we live? Probably so. 

History has shown that the dominant means of communication informs how that society is organized and operates. If you don't believe me, check our Harold Innis, it was his idea in the first place and have borne out over thousands of years. While this doesn't mean that technology runs us, it does indicate that the essentialness of the Internet has been embedded by us into more and more dimensions of our society such that access, cheap, unaltered or otherwise, becomes more essential by the day.

If it's not essential, then perhaps try to unplug for a month and keep up with all of the things that you had intended to do. Increasingly we can walk away but not without a certain number of consequences.

These consequences aren't as simple as 'it's quicker to look something up online than going to the library' they are more along the lines of what we would need to do to reorganize our lives to find a place for those things that we now do with the time we 'saved' by doing things online. This may sound trivial, I can't play 'wii' as long as I'd like now that I have to go to the library or the government office to renew something. But it's much more than that since, for many, the restructuring of our time and space through the increasing adoption of a networked world has been so fundamental that some people wouldn't be able to coordinate the lives they live today, maybe wouldn't have time for a second job, or to simply balance work/life/school/family, etc. I don't think this is an ideal situation but it is one that we shouldn't forget. And if ISPs say that we can or cannot do something it's not really about freedom of the market but rather about the ability of one type of market to instruct its 'consumers' how they should interact with other markets. Not to mention the number of businesses that couldn't coordinate their 'just in time' production and such that characterizes the contemporary production/consumption cycle. 

Fundamentally, there are two or three arguments going on here as I see them.

1. What do businesses have the right to do to protect their business interests.
2. What 'right' do we have to equal, fair, and open access to the emerging dominant means of communication that fundamentally informs how our society is being reconfigured?
3. What relationship is there between content, the Internet as a distribution system, and the need for 'common carriage' as is defined in the telecom act as the obligation of these service providers in exchange for the privilege of making money from our fees for services provided - provided equally to all without alteration - and the business practices of large players who have a vested interest in maintaining their market share and dominance, and, secondly, how does this fit into the ability or willingness of a government to take a stand and say, for a change, this is what's important to us as a country and make the appropriate legislation to respond, thus informing business practices and helping to shape society.

Added to this, I'm confounded by the insistence that everyone is downloading Torrents left and right, all day, all the time. I've done it once or twice, I won't lie. But of the dozens and dozens and dozens of people I interact with (I teach LARGE classes and interact with a range of community groups), torrents make up only a portion of their time. The bulk of their traffic is more mundane but increasingly bandwidth dependent like video conferencing, online media production and distribution and file exchanges for research and other forms of work. What happens when those are cut off, too? It's not really about market share then, it's about a series of very large corporations making business decisions accountable the needs of profit for private shareholders while impacting on our society as a whole, rather than a government installed by us and accountable to us as a whole. I don't know about you, but I don't own shares in Bell or Rogers but I do vote and make my views known to the government. Last time I tried to make my views known to Bell or Rogers the people who worked there didn't know whose responsibility long term visions or planning was - that wasn't their department.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> So if I put all this into perspective - and I certainly haven't studied this in any depth as you seem to have - the current copyright *legislation* specifically exempts music copying under specific circumstances (as I have read in the legislation) and Finkelstein's ruling essentially broadened that.
> Basically under the premise "If it's not explicitly forbidden, it's allowed".


For all intents and purposes yes, until his ruling is overturned (which to date it hasn't) or another court challenge sets a different or contrary precedent (on a different case with different circumstances), but that isn't likely to happen until we have new legislation for the courts to judge from. Judges aren't keen to overturn rulings or alter precedent unless they is damned good reason, that would then (ironically) set a bad precedent for other judges to do the same.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> No, definitely not, not as far as I am concerned.
> 
> To me an essential service is one that is provided to protect live and limb of an individual.
> A POTS line falls into that category because it is probably the prime method to call for help 911 - police - ambulance - whatever.
> VoIP certainly doesn't fall into that category, I don't even know if VoIP routes 911 calls.


They do route 911 if you are with Vonage as we are and we have no Bell line so for us based on your definition it would be an essential service.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Nicely worded post.
> But it seems to me the issue is beyond current CRTC jurisdiction and needs to be addressed by parliament.


You are absolutely right krs this kind of debate needs to go on in Parliament and that is for me, when it is going to start to get scary. 

I have worked for two different MPs one in Opposition and one in Government. I am very familiar with how things work on the Hill, the lobbying that goes on from vested interests, the disinformation, the pressures that are brought to bear and the decisions that are made to meet with political expediency and prudence. 

Then there is the ignorance factor. Most politicians knowledge of computers, the internet and other communications technologies extends about as far as how to use Outlook and their Blackberrys. Therefore real knowledgeable decision making by politicians is going to come from few of them with wide gaps in between. Most MPs opinions will be shaped by the most convincing lobbiest, the ones who come from their riding, or purely from Caucus recommendations or a Whipped position.

The real debate of any new Copyright or "net neutrality" legislation will occur at the Industry Committee and come from the expert witnesses. One can only hope that the experts represent a true cross section of the vested interests and stakeholders so that the full scope of what is at stake will become clear to our elected officials. We will have to wait and see.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Ravindra Mohabeer said:


> Is it essential like roads that connect cities and inform the shape of the society in which we live? Probably so.


You are comparing the necessity of roads to the necessity of the internet? WOW! Really? So you are saying that without the internet your life would pretty much come to such a halt that you would need to revert to living off the land because you don;t want to half to walk through miles of bush to the nearest general store? News flash; most of the worlds population DON'T have an internet connection! Are there lives a waste of time and space? Out side 10-15 years ago the majority of ehMacer's likely had no internet connection, were we just lost souls? Do you not remember ever filling out a paper form? Or standing in line...I am 29 and clearly remember these things like it was yesterday...wait a minute....IT WAS!!!

For someone to even think for a brief moment that the internet is an essential service needs to unplug for a while.

PS: Someone better tell the Ahmish!


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Forgot to mention, there are many times when I am unplugged for periods of time and it is great. I am now looking at getting out of my cell phone once again...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> You are comparing the necessity of roads to the necessity of the internet?


I think it is valid as a necessity so long as we are to embrace the paradigm of the Information Age. Do we need it to live? Of course not. But we don't need roads either, which are only required because of our fixation on transporting things by wheel!



> Out side 10-15 years ago the majority of ehMacer's likely had no internet connection, were we just lost souls?


I am more of a lost soul now because they shut down cool networks like ARPANet. But it has to do with need, and if we are to take the lead in the Information Age, we need a stable infrastructure. Right now, the Internet in Canada is run by a cabal of interconnected interests who are now plotting to rip off customers because they want to buy bigger yachts and a few new Rolls Royce automobiles. Just like roads a hundred and fifty years ago, plagued by tolls and fees. Once they were made public and free, paid for by everyone, it allowed for the development of what was then a colonial backwater.



> PS: Someone better tell the Ahmish!


The Amish are not trying to take the leadership in the Information Age. It is more like they are trying to be the masters of all that is 16th century, and are succeeding. They at once pious and wealthy! Not only that, considering that they eat more calories and fats than anyone else in our society (enough to clog a regular person up within a month), they have peculiarly low rates of heart attack and stroke. They are pretty healthy and strong, and any one of them could rip an olympic athlete apart, if the Bible told them to do such a thing...

I remember when they came to town to rip down the old TH&B roundhouse, which was bult out of huge timbers in the post and beam manner. They savaged that thing apart in a quarter of the time it would take machines to make a mess...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

And they did it without internet!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

krs said:


> No, definitely not, not as far as I am concerned.
> 
> To me an essential service is one that is provided to protect live and limb of an individual.
> A POTS line falls into that category because it is probably the prime method to call for help 911 - police - ambulance - whatever.
> VoIP certainly doesn't fall into that category, I don't even know if VoIP routes 911 calls.


Actually, as screature said, you can get 911 service provided with VOIP, but it's extra and the provider then has to provide a UPS to keep the VOIP system up - I guess to keep the modem powered.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Ravindra Mohabeer said:


> I suspect that access to the Internet becomes 'essential' when one can no longer access certain things (e.g. tax forms from a university) without downloading them from a secure web server.


This is actually becoming a real problem.

Not only that a lot of people, even in Canada, still don't have internet access - the assumption that a lot of these places make (Universities included) that by posting something on their web site everyone has the information and that it is correct.

I had two cases with McGill University not too long ago - one where I couldn't access an account to check tuition fee balance and payments required and the other where a statement that was posted in pdf ended up as gibberish when printed.
Even though I worked with McGill on these technical issues for several weeks (on and off), they never did get resolved.
The internet is a great tool, but it's not as infallible as people seem to think.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Actually, as screature said, you can get 911 service provided with VOIP, but it's extra and the provider then has to provide a UPS to keep the VOIP system up - I guess to keep the modem powered.


Not only that, one also has to manually register each location with the VoIP provider and remember to keep that information up to date to get the equivalent of E911.
With a wireline telephone system that happens automatically.
Actually - I don't know how that would even work if you access your VoIP account at different locations - Vonage would need to map your IP address to a specific physical location, but if you don't have a static IP address, then what?


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

For those of you who are interested in helping support (or not) the CAIP application to the CRTC concerning Bell's throttling of 3rd party ISP's here is a link with instructions on how to submit your comments to the CRTC.

Link to thread on the DSLReports forum.

This leads to the CRTC comments page. The instructions at the DSLReports link assist you in directing your comments to the right people.

This post will be cross posted to the Bell Throttling Thread.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

What about Rogers throttling?

Is anything going on there at CRTC?


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

So you think I should cross post it there too?

Here I have a slight problem with regards to protesting to the CRTC. If Bell or Rogers wish to throttle their own customers, and their customers by buying the service or continuing to support it, it is fine. However, I am with a ISP that specifically stated that they do not throttle (even though BitTorent throttling is mostly irrelevant to me) and Bell, in my humble opinion, has no right to then throttle my ISP and then me! My agreement with my ISP didn't have a clause in it stating that 'BitTorrents will be restricted to a download speed of 30 kbps between 4 p.m. and 2 a.m.'. If it had, I would of considered not agreeing to the service! 

My second issue here is when I had Sympatico I don't believe that the agreement had a similar clause to the one I made up above. If Sympatico doesn't have that specific clause Sympatico users should be complaining that Bell has breached or altered their contracts without their consent.

If ISP's wish to throttle some protocols to their customers they can. However, you the customer has to agree first.

If all ISP's throttle service to their customers then there is also a case to go before the CRTC. We are currently in that situation, however my ISP and others are protesting. A move which I am fully behind.

I will be sending a note to the CRTC, but I am only going to be taking issue with what Bell is imposing on my ISP.

I have no idea what is going on in Rogers land.

Am I making any sense here? Getting lost in my own arguments!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

bgw said:


> .
> Am I making any sense here? Getting lost in my own arguments!


You make perfect sense - forget Rogers.

I'm on DSL too - with Sympatico in one location and a third party ISP in another location.
Can't say that I have noticed any slowdowns in any downloads at all - in fact access and downloads from the Net including P2P is faster than ever.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

I've seen the same comment elsewhere. Torrents fast one day, slow the next. I think Bell hasn't successfully fully implemented the throttling technology. I haven't tested Torrenting since the whole issue started; nothing worth downloading! I don't need another copy of NeoOffice and I'm not interested in the CBC's _Canada's Next Prime Minister_ or whatever its called.

I've had a few unusual stalls at this site, the Globe and Mail and YouTube, since this has started but nothing really bad has happened. Internet radio and Skype seem to be working well too!


----------

