Thank you NDP (Net Neutrality)

[BlackEleven]

Never thought I'd be thanking the NDP.

The NDP has followed through with its promise to introduce legislation to the House of Commons that seeks to keep the internet open and free from control by service providers.


"This bill is about fairness to consumers," said Charlie Angus, the NDP's digital spokesman, in the House of Commons on Wednesday. "The internet is a critical piece of infrastructure not just for Canada but for the world ... this bill protects the innovation agenda of Canada."

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...h-netbill.html

I personally have Bell as my internet provider, and if I'm doing any sort of file sharing it renders my Internet connection almost useless, so I'm really hoping this passes. If not, its time to look for a new ISP.

[Resolute 14]

Someone unusual that the NDP would be championing freedom of any kind...

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I personally have Bell as my internet provider, and if I'm doing any sort of file sharing it renders my Internet connection almost useless, so I'm really hoping this passes. If not, its time to look for a new ISP.

Did you notice Dr. Geist's blog where he reported the class-action lawsuit brought against Bell on behalf of Quebec customers?
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2979/125/

It seeks a refund of 80 percent of the monthly subscription price, in line with the reduction in advertised speeds.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Someone unusual that the NDP would be championing freedom of any kind...

I think you have a very limited understanding of the NDP platform... They may be mostly nuts, but they do stand up for individual rights when more "conservative" elements would want to curb them.

Anyways, good to see this hit the legislature. Of all the bills that NEED to be passed, this is one of the biggest. And I think that can be agreed upon no matter what everyone's political bias is.

Net neutrality doesn't only affect file sharing of copyrighted material. Lack of protection allows large service providers to effectively maintain a choke hold on the industry by down ranking reseller traffic across their network. Bell was caught doing it earlier this year if I recall correctly. And considering the blurring of the lines between different telecommunication technologies, this could lead to some pretty dangerous anti-competitive practices.

Anyone ever really wondered why the mobility companies don't want most of their phones to have WiFi capabilities? And that those who do offer it disable most 3rd party applications. Skype would make a killing here.

[llama64]

Does anyone know if Shaw or Telus actively downrank torrent traffic? I havn't noticed any real slowdowns but I don't push my connection even close to the max.

[Russic]

I've noticed nothing from Shaw, but like you I'm not a power user of the sharing. I've heard of people getting kind reminders from shaw after downloading tons of stuff, so I'm thinking they don't throttle.

Cheers to the NDP! Wonderful to see this.

[Bobblehead]

I was just talking to a guy here at work - he uses Shaw and says he has give up on BT because of throttling. I have Telus and I haven't been throttled.

[photon]

I think Shaw does throttle but only in some areas. I've heard reports of it in BC, but nothing in Calgary.

I max out my connection with bit torrent pretty regularly (getting over 1MB/s is awesome), so I know they're not throttling me.

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by llama64

Does anyone know if Shaw or Telus actively downrank torrent traffic? I havn't noticed any real slowdowns but I don't push my connection even close to the max.

I'm never able to upload at anymore than 40-45k/sec but that's regardless of what I'm using to upload (Bit Torrent, my ftp server, etc).

On the other hand, I'm on a fast torrent site and can regularly download using bit torrent at 500-600k/sec.

I think your mileage varies (obviously) on the neighborhood you're in and the demand/use in that area.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Did you notice Dr. Geist's blog where he reported the class-action lawsuit brought against Bell on behalf of Quebec customers?
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2979/125/

I didn't know about this. Thanks for the link!

As for whether or not you're getting throttled its very easy to tell. When I start downloading a torrent it starts off at 200-300 KB/s, then it gradually slows down as my connection to fast peers is sabotaged. It then reaches 30 KB/s and stays there.

It's frustrating as all hell. The only upside is Bell only throttles during peak hours (which they refuse to define), so if I leave a torrent going overnight it will be done by the time I get up.

[Rathji]

Shaw Thottles torrents in smaller cities where they dont have the infrastructure to support the bandwidth

[mykalberta]

Its time for ISPs to simply state that they will rightsize traffic based on load.

Bit Torrent throtelling should have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is about ISP's arbitrarily blocking sites and not about shaping the traffic (if they blocked the traffic that would be different). The only reason BT gets any press is because its "hot news".

I support Net Neutrality in its pure form, but as someone who has seen what BT traffic can do to a network, there is no way that form of traffic useage should be allowed if it degrades the network preformance of other users.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Its time for ISPs to simply state that they will rightsize traffic based on load.

Bit Torrent throtelling should have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is about ISP's arbitrarily blocking sites and not about shaping the traffic (if they blocked the traffic that would be different). The only reason BT gets any press is because its "hot news".

I support Net Neutrality in its pure form, but as someone who has seen what BT traffic can do to a network, there is no way that form of traffic useage should be allowed if it degrades the network preformance of other users.

Two things:

1) Net Neutrality is about treating all traffic the same. If Telcos are allowed to differentiate and prioritize one type of traffic over another, what's to stop them from creating a multi tiered network and charging for "premium" access? It would be like setting up toll booths for all traffic that travels across their own piece of the net.

2) If the ISP's can't support their users using the service they bought and paid for at the advertised rates and limits, that's not the fault of BitTorrent or any other protocol. That's the ISP's fault for over selling their service. There should be regulations put in place to put Telcos in fault if and when they oversell their capacity. QoS and filtering are not valid solutions. Upgrading infrastructure is.

[Flames89]

You can usually get around throttling by making your Torrents go through the addresses reserved on the network for Voice over IP.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Its time for ISPs to simply state that they will rightsize traffic based on load.

Bit Torrent throtelling should have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is about ISP's arbitrarily blocking sites and not about shaping the traffic (if they blocked the traffic that would be different). The only reason BT gets any press is because its "hot news".

I support Net Neutrality in its pure form, but as someone who has seen what BT traffic can do to a network, there is no way that form of traffic useage should be allowed if it degrades the network preformance of other users.

I agree with you on the distinction between Net Neutrality and Bit torrent.

However, I disagree with what you say about haveing the right to shape traffic if it affects other users. People should receive what they have paid for. If they pay for an X Mb connection then that is what they should be receiving. If they want to sell something that says they can throttle certain types of traffic when loads get high, then that is what they should tell people they are selling. To sell one product and then provide something different is "bait and switch".

Personally, I think they need to spell out different plans to fit the type of traffic they can accommodate and the different types of users.

You're an online gamer? - higher speed, lower volume, more consistent connection plans.

A casual surfer/email? - moderate speed, moderate volume. And so on.

If an ISP is selling 6 Gbps/60 GB service, then that person should get 6 Gbps until the moment they hit their 60GB. That is what they paid for, that is what they should receive.


And back onto the BT for a moment, there is no way this protocol should be singled out. There are many legit uses, and they are becoming more prevalent all the time. It is a good way to distribute if you don't have access to a big pipe, and for small companies/bands/people it is often the best choice for distribution.

Finally, network neutrality has been an issue in Canada since Shaw/Rogers started selling their phone service, then offered to sell special internet access to allow other companies' VIOP traffic similar throughput/latencies. As soon as that happened, one companies VOIP (their own) was treated differently than any else's VOIP. That isn't neutral. I'm not sure what happened with the additional charge, I haven't heard about it in a while, but when Shaw came out with its phone service it made news.

[mykalberta]

Net Neutrality is as follows:

A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams

BT is not being blocked, depending on your interpretation of what it means to be unreasonably degraded then its possible. I dont consider shaping to be degrading. Cisco routers often shape traffic based on load and throughput with no input from the network admin.

IMHO shaping doesnt infringe on net netrality. It has been used as a way to market a product at certain "limitless" speeds and then when some actually try to use it, the ISP throttles them down based on load. All an ISP would need to do is put basic restrictions on everyone. Unfortunately "John Q surf the web to check weather" doesnt understand that he doesnt even use 1/3 and is essentially subsiziding users like "Davey pirates like mad".

What would infinge IMO is if movie/music companies started putting pressure on ISPs to shape BT traffic to limit its illegal users. At the moment I dont know of this happening. Althoguht you would think a company like Time Warner with its hands on both sides would be the firsts and not Comcast, Rogers, etc.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Net Neutrality is as follows:

A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams

BT is not being blocked, depending on your interpretation of what it means to be unreasonably degraded then its possible. I dont consider shaping to be degrading. Cisco routers often shape traffic based on load and throughput with no input from the network admin.

You don't think degrading the speed of certain protocols to less than 10% of the advertised speed is unreasonable? This is just another move in a long list of dubious actions taken by Bell.

[Rifleman]

Net Neutrality is anti competitive and I don't like it at all. Why should Teleco's who build their own fibre optic wires and cables into the ground not be able to charge what they want for their investment? If they spend millions to install the infrastructure, they deserve to get some of it back, by charging customers for super high speeds. This will stifle the industry.

We already have anti-trust laws to deal with net throttling. Like listed above, there's a class action against Bell in Quebec right now.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Net Neutrality is anti competitive and I don't like it at all. Why should Teleco's who build their own fibre optic wires and cables into the ground not be able to charge what they want for their investment? If they spend millions to install the infrastructure, they deserve to get some of it back, by charging customers for super high speeds. This will stifle the industry.

We already have anti-trust laws to deal with net throttling. Like listed above, there's a class action against Bell in Quebec right now.

Again... Net Neutrality is a concept that all internet traffic should be treated impartially and without discretion. As soon as you start dropping the QoS levels of certain protocols and even throttling the entire originating source, you start violating the concept (one that much of the architecture is based around). Letting Bell create a tiered network favoring their own services to the detriment of all over providers is anti-competitive, not Net Neutrality.

I believe the telcos had the help of Mother Government to build their monopolistic networks in the first place. There is nothing "competitive" about the telco business no matter how you look at it.

The current anti-trust laws do not cover this area to my knowledge. Watch for this class-action lawsuit to be settled outside of a court so that the laws remain ambiguous and detrimental to all consumers in Canada.

[Azure]

If the NDP is 'for' this....wouldn't they be against the stupid bill the conservatives are proposing?