It's Good To Be A Monopoly: Bell Canada Tells ISPs To Shut Up And Accept Traffic Shaping

from the what-are-you-gonna-do? dept

Remember how Bell Canada had decided to start traffic shaping without telling any of its ISP resellers? Well, in a meeting with those resellers, the company both admitted it and told them there was nothing they could do about it, even if it meant that those ISPs were violating their own terms of service and promises to customers. It's good to be a monopoly, you see. Since those ISPs have nowhere else to go, Bell Canada is able to do whatever it wants to the network, and if those ISPs don't like it, they're pretty much out of luck.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Nick, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 7:07pm

    Alarms

    Hopefully legislators in America and the rest of the world will look at this and realize the importance of net neutrality. Also, here's hoping Canada wises up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Jeff, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 7:36pm

    Nowhere else to go?

    Where do you get no where else to go? There are alot of network service providers in Canada. My company has 100M link with Cogent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 7:37pm

    Early termination fees are just another in a long series of corporate misdeeds levied upon a nearly defenseless public.

    Pay an attorney and find out if the early termination fee is still binding. Then let us all know the result.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Wondering, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 8:02pm

    Complain to?

    Anyone know if any Canadian authority has any control over this? I saw one mentioned at dslreports, but they don't seem to have any control over this. I am wondering if there is any group, which can change this, that I could complain to?

    Not that it really will change anything, but I at least want to do my part.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 9:11pm

    #5 - I think you meant 3,000,000,000,000.00

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 9:15pm

    I left Bell DSL because they started traffic shaping, and went to another DSL, who said they would never have traffic shaping, TekSavvy. Now Bell is going to force traffic shaping onto them? This just f'in' pisses me off. Glad I got rid of Bell, but damn annoying they are pulling this crap. I hope the government steps in and spanks Bell, and takes away their monopoly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    linuxamp, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 10:19pm

    Funny thing is that I'm all for net neutrality and I really hate being forced into a shaped network but I understand why it's sometimes necessary. I shape my own traffic at my gateway so that my VoIP traffic gets priority over other traffic that may otherwise degrade voice quality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Etch, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 10:54pm

    Its gettign bad

    Fucking conservatives, they fuck it up wherever they are.
    Lets hope the next government is at least Liberal, they both always end up cancelling each other out anyways!!

    Roger's is also flexing its muscles.. almost as bad as Bell

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    linus, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 1:38am

    Re:

    The thing is .. its your choice to shape traffic and its not forced upon you. I also put guarantees on QOS on certain ip's and times of day, but only because I do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    dnm, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 2:49am

    The thing about it...

    The thing about all this though, is that it has nothing to do with the conservative government. This sort of thing is regulated by the CRTC. The CRTC has people who are on Bell's payroll on its deciding committee.

    Bell is a blatant, defacto Monopoly, and they've got us all by the balls. Rogers too.

    It's an absolute disgrace, and nobody seems interested in doing anything about it. These companies don't give a fuck about you, and as long as the CRTC continues to allow it, nothing's going to change it.

    BTW, mr 'Anonymous Coward', we have issues with monopolies with our banks, phone companies, and cable companies, but it stops there. They're not government companies, and it ain't socialism. Perhaps MORE socialist than countries than say the United States, but at least we still have our constitutional rights. You could stand to look up socialism in a dictionary. This sorta thing sucks, but Canada's still the best country in the world.

    Fellow Canadians, I suggest you start by complaining very loudly to the minister of commerce in your province, and federally, and your local and federal politician.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Twinrova, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 3:59am

    My reply

    Hmmm...

    So if my cable company does something I don't like and I want cable service without a dish stuck to my roof, I've got other choices???

    If my electric company does something I don't like and I want to keep electricity but don't want a windmill* in my yard, I've got other choices???

    If my water company does something I don't like and I want to keep water without lining my yard with buckets, I've got other choices???

    If my gas company does something I don't like and I want to keep gas without drilling a hole in the ground, I've got other choices???

    Stupid Canadians. ;)

    *Carmel, IN forbids home owners from applying windmills in their yards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 5:11am

    If your internet access comes in through a dish, it's not cable service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Spuds, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 5:34am

    Ummmm...

    You're missing the point, #13 Anonymous Coward.

    Spuds

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    BTR1701, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 6:05am

    Re: Facts on socialistic socities.

    > FYI:
    > $3T looks like this:

    > $3,000,000,000.00

    Actually, it doesn't. It looks like this:

    $3,000,000,000,000.00

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 6:18am

    Re: The thing about it...

    Its not the CRTC. Its the Comeptition Beureau.

    The CRTC will take the complaint. But has nothing to do with billing, or anything else. It should

    However our government has been to busy kissing the us's assess with the DMCA, to see that they need to do something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Ferin, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 8:30am

    Gotta love the arrogance

    It always amazes me to see the arrogance displayed by these monopolies. The governments grant them literally thousands of square miles of land for cheap to string their networks along. They grant them right of way to keep their precious lines safe. They're handed a monopoly on a silver platter, then proceed to gouge customers. And instead of upgrading and building out their network to handle demand for speed, they just slap throttles on and celebrate another year of record profits. This kinda shit just makes me sick. Free market my ass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Nasch, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 8:38am

    Re: Alarms

    "Hopefully legislators in America and the rest of the world will look at this and realize the importance of net neutrality."

    This isn't about net neutrality. NN doesn't mean forbidding traffic shaping, it means forcing ISPs to treat everyone equally. That means that with NN they couldn't provide an improved performance to one web site (streaming video provider, etc) that paid more for it, compared to another who didn't. But if they want to shape all traffic the same for all providers, that is not a NN issue. Net neutrality means being neutral to who is providing the content, not neutral to what kind of traffic it is.

    I'm not saying this doesn't suck, I'm just saying it's not a violation of net neutrality. *Good* traffic shaping would prioritize things that need low latency (eg VOIP). This is bad traffic shaping, because it throttles traffic that the ISP doesn't like.

    IMO, if their network cannot handle the traffic they're getting at flat-rate fees, then start charging by the MB and use the money from the heavy users to build out the network to the point where it *can* handle the traffic. That is of course a pipe dream, but it would be a fair solution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Gurney, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 8:54am

    Re: Nowhere else to go?

    But Cogent doesn't sell DSL. So it doesn't help.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    James, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Nowhere else to go?

    The point is that Cogent leases its bandwidth from Bell to provide it to you, and now bell is degrading the performance of resellers such as Cogent. Bell owns the infrastructure so until a law is passed that they have to play nice in the sandbox with all the other kids, Bell will do as it pleases with its infrastructure to make its service in the eyes of the consumer look best.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    James, Mar 26th, 2008 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Facts on socialistic socities.

    You need to learn what the definition of socialism is my friend. The government doesn't control Canada's internet service providers, it's simply that there are only a couple big players in this small pond. If we had 500 million people such as the US, it would attract more ISPs and there would be more options but alas we are only 30 million or so, so companies can't afford to invest in infrastructure and not be confident the masses would switch over.

    By the way, the US could learn a thing or two about social services if it weren't so paranoid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    mic, Mar 30th, 2008 @ 6:01am

    I think that ISP resellers and smaller ISPs together would have enough power to build a parallel infrastructure with the significant coverage. The question is whether it would be profitable for them - would customers value they unshaped and more expensive connection more then competitors shaped? I doubt that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Draw, Apr 22nd, 2008 @ 8:29pm

    Founder Alexander Graham Bell is now shamefaced!

    Fascism is what it's called. As consumers it is our duty to fight. Write the CRTC, local government, and use whatever means available to stop these companies from spoiling your fabric of humanity. Stay strong with assertive communication amongst ourselves. R & D verses monopolization and stagnation. I QUIT BELL, the company that used to care about its customers. BYE BYE BELL Canada

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    K Xeron, May 13th, 2008 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Nowhere else to go?

    "Where do you get no where else to go? There are alot of network service providers in Canada. My company has 100M link with Cogent."

    Okay, this is one thing many people (even many network administrators) sadly miss the point of that annoys me greatly:
    There is plenty of bandwidth/NSPs within the internet infastructure, you could have multi-gigabit at your office/datacenters, but it means nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, if you're an ISP that can't get your bandwidth to your customers. In North America, there's usually only 2 options when it comes to wired connectivity to homes: Cable or DSL (FiOS doesn't count yet due to it's lack of proper coverage), both of which are already controlled by incumbents (Bell is an incumbent). To get bandwidth from your customer to your company's network, you have to rent out the lines from the incumbents because laying your own would be cost prohibitive.

    Now, the situation here, is that the competing ISPs who purchase bandwidth from Bell to the last mile, are being THROTTLED even when said ISPs are using their own connectivity to backbones and NOT bell's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This