Free Newsletter
Bell Canada throttling sparking uproar
If Comcast thinks it had a tough time dealing with its P2P brouhaha, all it needs to do to feel a little less bothered is to take a peak north of the border to where Bell Canada is having a knock-down, drag-out, no-holds-barred cage match over bandwidth throttling and Internet traffic shaping.
It all began earlier this month with a CTV.ca report that independent ISPs using Bell Canada's phone lines were complaining about new traffic-shaping policies the northern telecom giant recently implemented. The Canadian Association of Internet Providers filed a formal complaint with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission over the throttling and, well, it's been downhill from there.
CIAP says Bell's Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) techniques have slowed traffic to a crawl between 4 p.m. and 2 a.m. Bell says it's a measure targeted at a small group of users (sounding familiar yet?) who hog bandwidth, and contends it has a right to police its network. "Bandwidth doesn't just fall from the sky," said a Bell spokesman.
And, the battle's moved up a rung--into the sphere of politicos. Members of Parliament Charlie Angus and Irene Mathyssen ripped the Conservative government for failing to protect consumers and--wait for it--freedom of speech on the Internet.
"They don't understand net neutrality," said Angus. "They're about as far as you can get from the issue. What's really at issue here is we need clear and transparent rules for how the giant telecoms are going to allow traffic flow on the Internet," said Angus, digital spokesperson for the federal NDP party.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin faced similar arguments last week at a Stanford hearing on Comcast throttling.
For more:
- Read the full CTV.ca article
- and, the full London Topic.com article on the escalating political fallout
Related articles:
Comcast faces heat for throttling Comcast report
Comcast defends P2P management to FCC Comcast report
Comments
TO : ISPs
Please correct me if I'm wrong but don't you guys pay for guaranteed bandwidth allocation? So lets say an ISP leases a 100 megabyte/sec line for one year from a upstream provider like Bell and also to simplified the who thing, lets say the ISP in question has two profitable customers. Then should we assume one of two things, First Bell opens the "valves" at their end so to speak at 100 megabyte/sec and forgets traffic(images and all)throughput up to 100 megabyte/sec, seeing thats what your paying for. Also whatever is negotiated with the first customer, then subsequent customers should not be sold more than the balance of the remaining bandwidth, or is it that ISPs sub-leases to 10 customers a 100 megabyte/sec agreement per one same bandwidth agreement with Bell This then would be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.



Comments (1) | Post a comment