: Online Petitions to stop throttling in Canada


8127972
Apr 1st, 2008, 11:51 AM
On the suggestion of bgw, I would like to highlight the following links to online petitions to stop throttling in Canada:

Net Neutrality (http://www.neutrality.ca/)
Stop The Throttler! | Canadians for Democratic Media (http://democraticmedia.ca/throttler)

I cannot take credit for finding these. I read a blog called "The IT Nerd" (The IT Nerd (http://itnerd.wordpress.com)) and s/he mentioned these links on his/her front page. S/He's also got a variety of entries on this issues as well if you browse his entries. One that I would like to highlight is this one:

Net Neutrality In Canada - The Debate Starts Now The IT Nerd (http://itnerd.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/net-neutrality-in-canada-the-debate-starts-now/)

S/he has suggested additional things that you can do to stop throttling in Canada.

RunTheWorldOnMac
Apr 1st, 2008, 12:09 PM
I'm not on DSL so I really have to stake in this but suspect a petition isn't going to do anything. The only thing that will make any difference is if people switch over to cable and tell Bell when they leave.

madgunde
Apr 1st, 2008, 12:32 PM
I'm not on DSL so I really have to stake in this but suspect a petition isn't going to do anything. The only thing that will make any difference is if people switch over to cable and tell Bell when they leave.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Cable operators are throttling P2P traffic as well. I know Rogers has been for a long time, and if others aren't currently, they most likely will in the near future. Regardless of whether your ISP is throttling right now or not, it's still your internet and if you disagree with the practice, you should make your voice heard now rather than wait for it to become a problem.

monokitty
Apr 1st, 2008, 01:11 PM
In any case, an online petition will probably do little to nothing in reversing ISP's (and/or others) decision in the case of P2P throttling.

8127972
Apr 1st, 2008, 01:14 PM
In any case, an online petition will probably do little to nothing in reversing ISP's (and/or others) decision in the case of P2P throttling.

That in itself would be a major accomplishment, would it not?

RunTheWorldOnMac
Apr 1st, 2008, 01:17 PM
Well we're all up the creek then I guess... I am happy with my speeds, I don't torrent. I work on a computer all day and the last thing I want is to jump on mine at home for hours on end. I mostly check the forums, Facebook, banking, download an app here or there, rarely Limewire...I am happy.

The thing here is there is no law against what they are doing, if everyone is scaling back there is little to anything that will change. Even if everyone complained everyday nothing would happen unless there was someone to go to who didn't scale back. It's not as if you can say I'm going with so and so if there is nobody to turn to. It's basically one big monopoly shared by all ISPs...and you can't beat a monopoly unless the government steps in. Since, contrary to your statement it's actually not our internet....the internet is essentially a myth...it's just a very large network and to gain access to this network you need an ISP, so really it's their internet "access" being sold and they can do with it what they will...like it or not....

bgw
Apr 1st, 2008, 01:24 PM
First of all, thanks to 8127972 for starting a new thread.

If your not concerned your faith is misplaced. Has your ISP changed your service, for the better, for less money? Confident your ISP is immune to Bell's and Roger's whims? Worried that some other protocol will be affected; encrypted communication with your bank for instance? If you are confident don't sign. Otherwise sign.

I've signed.

Carl
Apr 1st, 2008, 01:34 PM
All this does is throttle one type of traffic. As far as I'm concerned, that means that the software will simply adapt to the situation and make all the traffic look the same in the future. This is simply the impetus to make things evolve.
I mean, what if people began transferring files over Skype, or figured out how to emulate the iTunes system? No one is throttling that traffic.
Quite frankly, I wish everyone would stop making this such a big deal and let the community change the protocols instead. It needs so many improvements anyway, including a better way to improve anonymity.

This too shall pass.

monokitty
Apr 1st, 2008, 01:38 PM
I too agree that this massive outcry over ISP throttling has had its seriousness blown out of proportion.

That in itself would be a major accomplishment, would it not?

If the petition accomplishes little to nothing, as I stated, that would be a major accomplishment? No, sorry, I can't say I agree with you there.

bgw
Apr 1st, 2008, 01:52 PM
The thing here is there is no law against what they are doing... It's basically one big monopoly shared by all ISPs...and you can't beat a monopoly unless the government steps in.

What they are doing maybe illegal (or at the very least unethical and un-competitive) in that they are changing the service that you and I get. Hence all the protest. It may be time for the courts to step in.

I don't torrent much either, don't get anywhere near my caps but this still this irks me.

If the ISP's have problems with the current demand they can charge you more, throttle you, cap you after your current contract runs out. They can also impose lower limits on new customers, but not existing ones. If they can't manage the demand that their current contracts produce they only really have one option; find some way to support it that does not alter the contracted service they have promised.

And in the long run, the additional fees they collect from heavy users who choose high caps and unthrottled access to the net can go into building more infrastructure to support their usage.

RunTheWorldOnMac
Apr 1st, 2008, 02:07 PM
I don't see how you can think it's illegal...now on one hand if they were to advertise 100Mb download and they couldn't provide that, then it's false advertising. However, they would never say that. What they will say is "up to 100Mb" possible. And yes, reaching the max speed offered is a stretch of the imagination under the best possible conditions.

As I said, I am happy with my service and for the same price I paid 5 years ago I am getting faster speeds...

Carl
Apr 1st, 2008, 02:14 PM
I think "illegal" is a bit of stretch. AT the very least, someone is identifying encrypted traffic and treating it differently. Since many legitimate businesses use BT to transfer files, issue updates, release music and video, the argument can be made that the "technical invasion of privacy" contravenes our Privacy Act. You don't have to identify people to breach privacy, you just have to look at what they are doing, which is what this does.
I still think its a bit of an over reaction, because the idea of throttling will simply push the envelope for data transmission protocols. This is what people need, not petitions to protect the integrity of existing technology.
Inspiration always come from adversity, and I have already seen a few projects in the making that will make all of this fuss a moot point.

EvanPitts
Apr 1st, 2008, 02:53 PM
All this does is throttle one type of traffic.

Actually, they have done a number of things simultaneously. They can not throttle P2P traffic specifically. Instead, they throttle all encrypted traffic. Not only P2P, but even logging onto GMail, or using a Bank, or whatever, is affected. They may have thought that choking back P2P transfers would lead to less piracy; but now that major mainstream media outlets are going to Torrents, this has become a silly quest. Also, for all of the hype about torrents, much of the bandwidth is actually used for streaming video. This has created a server problem for broadcasters that can only be worked around through more organic networking like torrents.

They have also throttled back the throughput of the network, slowing down all downloads and the rendering of pages in general. This is not always because there are a bunch of people in a neighbourhood downloading at the same time, but because the companies oversold their position. Their networks are not capable of doing what they have advertised for the larger numbers of people that are using their services. This will lead to brownouts that can only be solved by either steeply increasing the bandwidth available on the backbone, or by sharing those resources that can be shared. Hence, the solution is to encourage torrents instead of trying to cram enough streamed media into the pipe to satisfy their customers.

Improvements, like Web 2.0, and more media content, will only serve to drive the demand for bandwidth up; and really, if large media operations like the CBC, NBC and Universal Studios are choosing to go to Torrents, then throttling will be an unacceptable solution.

cchaynes
Apr 1st, 2008, 04:21 PM
isps have been advertising speeds that you will never get since before broadband...

yes throttling sucks, but all you can do is vote with your feet, if there is no where to move to, suck it up... Like rogers and bell are going to cave to a petition, they have a virtual monopoly in many parts of the country.

90% of torrent traffic is illegal, so good luck fighting for it as a protocol with merits. If in fact large scale (non linux community) use of torrents happens then perhaps there is a point

Carl
Apr 1st, 2008, 05:29 PM
Well, if that's the case, I am the only one that is immune. HTTP traffic on my machine is at 5 Mb, and even GMail downloads are fast. Rendering is done through HTTP, which has been opened up lately as the network is improved.
I think we have a lot of people here making claims about stuff they have no idea about.
Skype is fully encrypted, and it still runs at full speed for me.

So, actually, they are only shaping specific traffic and it would help if people didn't start making sh*t up.

ApplePie
Apr 1st, 2008, 05:44 PM
Couple of articles on the subject.
Union urges CRTC to curb internet interference by Bell, Rogers (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/03/28/tech-netneutrality.html)
CYBERLAW: Plan to limit bandwidth is threat to competitive 'Net (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=81a0b5a3-218c-4d9c-a3bd-b235e7693a84&k=12434)

Seems like some don't understand what a monopoly is and why the government needs to do something to help competition in Canada and why it is good for everyone. Also, don't confuse BT with net neutrality.

The best comment was there is nothing we can do! lol! That's right turn your brain off and question nothing.

chas_m
Apr 1st, 2008, 06:05 PM
I don't mean to sound negative, but all the protest is only get the ISPs here to drop the word "unlimited" from their advertising. That's it.

Throttling is here to stay until some huge new pipe gets put in and/or some company figures out a way to make a lot more money by opening the spigot. Usenet people saw this writing on the wall a LONG time ago, and some companies (like Panic) got on board and make a healthy profit offering a bigger pipe than your ISP does.

Sorry, that's the future. I still say the 60GB/month "cap" the ISPs impose is well beyond reasonable. Call me when it's 25GB/month and maybe I'll come protest.

ApplePie
Apr 1st, 2008, 06:12 PM
I don't mean to sound negative, but all the protest is only get the ISPs here to drop the word "unlimited" from their advertising. That's it.

Throttling is here to stay until some huge new pipe gets put in and/or some company figures out a way to make a lot more money by opening the spigot. Usenet people saw this writing on the wall a LONG time ago, and some companies (like Panic) got on board and make a healthy profit offering a bigger pipe than your ISP does.

Sorry, that's the future. I still say the 60GB/month "cap" the ISPs impose is well beyond reasonable. Call me when it's 25GB/month and maybe I'll come protest.

Net neutrality has nothing to with caps/or unlimited. The future will have more bandwidth usage not less. Happy April FOOLS day.

cchaynes
Apr 1st, 2008, 06:26 PM
60 gb is nothing at all

stream music?

download 2 movies a week from apple, oops sorry i can t download my email for 2 weeks i have used up my quota....

the faster they make things the more limits they seem to want to place on them....

it is ridiculous

i have no idea what my usage is right now, but it must be pretty high and i am by no means a big torrent user, just on and off..

i likely send over 1 gb per month in just mail

all of my corporate apps are now web based and constantly exchanging bits of data, hardly a drain on rogers, but to be sked to pay more, that is wrong....

as for throttling, whatever we dont own the network we simply rent it, so they can do whatever they like...

ApplePie
Apr 1st, 2008, 06:34 PM
60 gb is nothing at all

stream music?

download 2 movies a week from apple, oops sorry i can t download my email for 2 weeks i have used up my quota....

the faster they make things the more limits they seem to want to place on them....

it is ridiculous

i have no idea what my usage is right now, but it must be pretty high and i am by no means a big torrent user, just on and off..

i likely send over 1 gb per month in just mail

all of my corporate apps are now web based and constantly exchanging bits of data, hardly a drain on rogers, but to be sked to pay more, that is wrong....

as for throttling, whatever we dont own the network we simply rent it, so they can do whatever they like...
This thread is about net neutrality NOT caps. Get it? You might want to understand some of the issues before you comment, otherwise people might think you don't make much sense.

cchaynes
Apr 1st, 2008, 07:44 PM
This thread is about net neutrality NOT caps. Get it? You might want to understand some of the issues before you comment, otherwise people might think you don't make much sense.

Welcome to eh mac new neighbour....

why don't YOU scroll up to Chats post and realize that my comments addressed part of his, perhaps his someone else's...

I do happen to "understand" the issues very well, but with your massive 15 post count it seems you just haven't met me yet...

so my neighbourly suggestion is that you remove your head from your rear end and read all of the posts ahead of the one you are commenting on before you suggest that it is off topic...

absolutetotalgeek
Apr 1st, 2008, 08:05 PM
I think some people need to do some research on what Net Neutrality is really all about. ;)

ApplePie
Apr 1st, 2008, 08:06 PM
Welcome to eh mac new neighbour....

why don't YOU scroll up to Chats post and realize that my comments addressed part of his, perhaps his someone else's...

I do happen to "understand" the issues very well, but with your massive 15 post count it seems you just haven't met me yet...

so my neighbourly suggestion is that you remove your head from your rear end and read all of the posts ahead of the one you are commenting on before you suggest that it is off topic...
Welcome to you too.

Chas and your post are leading this discussion more off topic than it already is. Your argument is I'm off-topic because Chas is off topic because someone else is off topic. Your still off-topic, get it?

I glad you understand the issues very well, lots of people don't. My post count has nothing to do with logic or this issue why bring it up? (If you say 2+2=3, but I say it's 4 but you have more posts, does that mean your right?)

I did read the posts, you are still off topic. Get it? By the way, my head isn't in my rear end, get it? Your last post is mostly off topic about another issue and your last comment on the issue is a meaningless statement that can easily be argued.

madgunde
Apr 1st, 2008, 08:47 PM
Welcome to eh mac new neighbour....

why don't YOU scroll up to Chats post and realize that my comments addressed part of his, perhaps his someone else's...

I do happen to "understand" the issues very well, but with your massive 15 post count it seems you just haven't met me yet...

so my neighbourly suggestion is that you remove your head from your rear end and read all of the posts ahead of the one you are commenting on before you suggest that it is off topic...

Wow, it's posts like this that is why forums often degrade in civility. Ehmac would never have become as popular as it has if everyone was as unwelcoming as this.

To get things back ON topic. Those of you who think this is just a fact of life and not a big deal just aren't considering all the factors. A competitive Internet market in Canada is essential to Canada's ability to compete in the global marketplace. We are already woafully behind many other nations in access to the internet and internet adoption, reducing competition further is going to put us even further behind. The reason the government mandated that Bell make it's connections available wholesale was to spur competition in the market. If Bell can exert unfair control over their competitors, like forcing their policies on them, that is restricting competition.

But it doesn't just stop at competition in the internet provider market. The internet is a network which can be used to provide a myriad of services, including video on demand and voice over IP, which are both competitors to traditional cable/satellite television and telephone service. By Bell arbitrarily throttling protocols by their choosing, they are directly affecting the quality of service that their competitors in the television programming and telephony markets are offering. I've read about cases where people's voip phone service has been rendered unusable since the throttling began. CBC, among many others, has chosen to start distributing video programming via Bittorrent. By throttling Bittorrent, Bell and Rogers are directly affecting the competitiveness of these Bittorrent offerings because the slower it is to download, the fewer the number of people who will choose to do it.

To compound this anticompetitive behavior, consumers would normally be able to vote with their wallets and switch to a competitor like TekSavvy if they weren't happy with Bell's throttling policies, but Bell has again stifled competition by making sure their competitors can't offer more competitive service.

I'll agree that the letter of the law might not explicitly state that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal, but I'm pretty sure it is in the spirit of the law.

SINC
Apr 1st, 2008, 08:51 PM
Sabre rattlin' does no one any good and leaves a poor impression. :rolleyes:

8127972
Apr 1st, 2008, 09:05 PM
I think some people need to do some research on what Net Neutrality is really all about. ;)

I'll save everyone the trouble. Check the link below:

Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality)

ApplePie
Apr 1st, 2008, 09:13 PM
I'm not offended by what anyone has said. I am trying to cut thru the BS quickly, and once that is out of the way maybe we can discuss the issue.

Caps have nothing to do with net neutrality. The BT protocol can be argued later if it should fall under the provision, that said legitimate unambiguous uses are arising. Is the provision worthwhile when all is said and done? Just like free speech there will be good and bad. But without it business will have the choice of what you can use, see, do etc.

bgw
Apr 1st, 2008, 09:22 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Lets stay on topic and be polite to each other; we have much more to unite us then divide us!

Caps are a issue for some. I have made statements about caps before: perfectly legal, perfectly fine if you sign a contract that imposes them.

Throttling is a issue for all. I have made statements before about throttling: perfectly legal, perfectly fine if you signed a contract that imposes throttling.

I have a contract with a ISP: 200 GB per month cap (no problem there), up to 5 MB/s service (I get over 85% of this, as expected, so its good), My agreement with my ISP, which I left Bell for, doesn't include any throttled services. Hence, unless my ISP comes back to me and wants to re-negotiate I maintain that I get a unthrottled service. (Footnote: I didn't ask for a throttled service, my ISP didn't offer one!)

If I want to go to the CBC's site tonight, download one of their shows which the CBC has set it up as a bit torrent, it should come down at the same speed everything else does (my close to as advertised, within technical limits, of 5MB/s). If Bell's servers can't support that they should implement the infrastructure to support it. If my ISP can't support it they should be working hard to support it. At the end of my agreement with my ISP, negotiations can start about either different performance metrics for my service or different pricing. I am simply expecting them to keep up their end of the deal.

If Bell has oversold their service, or my ISP has oversold their service that is their problem; they still have a contractual agreement with me. All I'm expecting them to do is meet it!

Oh ya, got off track there, the real reason for this post is a article in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/407730) about this issue by Michael Geist a professor at the University of Ottawa faculty of law. I suggest that before any of us make any more statements his commentary on the issue should be read.

bgw
Apr 1st, 2008, 09:42 PM
A competitive Internet market in Canada is essential to Canada's ability to compete in the global marketplace. We are already woafully behind many other nations in access to the internet and internet adoption, reducing competition further is going to put us even further behind. The reason the government mandated that Bell make it's connections available wholesale was to spur competition in the market. If Bell can exert unfair control over their competitors, like forcing their policies on them, that is restricting competition.

But it doesn't just stop at competition in the internet provider market. The internet is a network which can be used to provide a myriad of services, including video on demand and voice over IP, which are both competitors to traditional cable/satellite television and telephone service. By Bell arbitrarily throttling protocols by their choosing, they are directly affecting the quality of service that their competitors in the television programming and telephony markets are offering. I've read about cases where people's voip phone service has been rendered unusable since the throttling began. CBC, among many others, has chosen to start distributing video programming via Bittorrent. By throttling Bittorrent, Bell and Rogers are directly affecting the competitiveness of these Bittorrent offerings because the slower it is to download, the fewer the number of people who will choose to do it..

Here here!

I'm thinking of starting a company that offers a internet service. I'm already, since both my wife and I posses different foreign passports, debating whether or not to take the whole thing offshore. I'm only a few weeks in and I already have got a graphics artist, a lawyer, a CMA, a SR&ED grant consultant and am looking for someone to supply me with computer hardware. All these jobs, profits, taxes and spinoffs will vanish from the Canadian Economy if I leave. Bell and Rogers might suddenly move the goal posts again and throttle any protocol that I use to support my service. I really am feeling the FUD (Fear Uncertainly and Doubt). It is beneficial to Bell and Rogers, the government, and Canada in general to maintain the highest standards of internet capacity. Do I feel that my potential Canadian customers will get reliable, fast internet service at a reasonable price: NO!

Carl
Apr 1st, 2008, 10:49 PM
I think it is safe to say, this can't be discussed. When you understand that the Japanese recently launched a satellite capable of providing 12 MB/sec downlink capability, and I have 5 MB DSL, it is reasonable to assume that the technology will change faster than some silly petition.
BY the time someone gets the argument off the ground that P2P shouldn't be throttled, new methods of data transport will already be running and new protocols will be in place.
Here's the deal. The Internet will continue to get faster and faster because that's just how technology works. We will probably see 20 MB wireless capability in under 5 years. That may even sound stupid 5 years from now.

madgunde
Apr 1st, 2008, 11:03 PM
Here's the deal. The Internet will continue to get faster and faster because that's just how technology works. We will probably see 20 MB wireless capability in under 5 years. That may even sound stupid 5 years from now.

That's not going to happen without competition. Throttling speeds is an alternative strategy to investing in increased capacity and bandwidth.

ApplePie
Apr 2nd, 2008, 12:27 AM
I think it is safe to say, this can't be discussed. When you understand that the Japanese recently launched a satellite capable of providing 12 MB/sec downlink capability, and I have 5 MB DSL, it is reasonable to assume that the technology will change faster than some silly petition.
BY the time someone gets the argument off the ground that P2P shouldn't be throttled, new methods of data transport will already be running and new protocols will be in place.
Here's the deal. The Internet will continue to get faster and faster because that's just how technology works. We will probably see 20 MB wireless capability in under 5 years. That may even sound stupid 5 years from now.
The petition is one thing. Understanding why certain ground rules have to established is another. One of the ground rules is to treat protocols equally, forget P2P. If Bell/Rogers has no reason to make the internet faster and faster why will it? Or why would Bell/Rogers make it faster for a "variety of reasons" instead of specifically for something they want to sell you? What about services that compete with their services, there is no control after all? Their service goes fast (and you pay for it) but the competitions doesn't go fast? Sounds like a good model for them. Hopefully Bell/Rogers and others gets us to the internet. Once we are on the internet we chose if we play games or buy shows from this place or that place or you like this and I like that, but they should not chose for us what that is. If they want to sell blocks of GB fine, but don't tell us how we are to use them as well. Don't tell us Miss Jones only gets email and uses this program to get it so why don't you? Plus she uses a PC so why don't you? Mono anything is bad.