Traffic managment is one of the most effective recourses an ISP has against illegal downloaders and bandwidth hogs. It allows them to ensure that VOIP and other streaming services have sufficient bandwidth to run properly.

Recently many talks over ISPs assisting in promoting Canadian content were held by Canadian artists and other organizations that produce content. One of their suggestions was to identify and promote Canadian content to Canadian users. I see this as a mirror of the exact same issue.

Either we are "net neutral" and allow everything and anything (legal) in and out of Canada, with no tampering, or we open that door a crack and allow things to go crazy. As far as traffic shaping on packet types (like torrents) I think we have to provide ISPs a way to protect their networks from the abusers. If we remove traffic shaping then we have to replace the tool with something like stronger, enforced copyright laws.

[updated 2009-03-31 14:31]

The only real issue is ownership of last mile connections monopolistic practices by Bell. As a DSL customer of "A" ISP, my bandwidth that I purchase from them should have no bearing or impedenace on another ISP, such as BELL. I am not a customer of BELL's, nor do I use their bandwidth. Any usage I have should is pureley between my ISP and me. Now, I know BELL may have built that "last mile" connection from my house to the Connecting office, but that was paid for by me, that tax payer indirectly and NO private company should be allowed to OWN or control it or manipulate it in their own monopolistic ways. The government needs to step in and assert this ASAP.

[updated 2009-03-31 14:46]

Traffic management should only be used on certain priciples. Example, giving voip QoS. Not the other way around, where the discriminate against a certain packet.

The whole throttling thing also is a gise as to hold off infrastructure spending. Bell/Rogers idea of making the most out of existing tech while, extremely over subscribing their current infrastructure.

Back to reality we are also (the public) paying for a service that we are only getting a potion of, if throttling is gonna continue these companies should be forced to only advertise there speeds as max as the throttle is.

I do not think it is fair to the general public since most are not aware of these tactics by these companies, along with this website the CRTC should make a statement to the CBC to do a full one hour special on this to inform the general public. This information will not be cast on the other major news networks due to affiliation with the companies that are practicing throttling. Even rogers fired a nice reporter from Citytv for mentioning this in a report.

I feel that the few of us that know what is going on are being treated unfairly due to this sort of news blackout to the general public.

[updated 2009-03-31 15:09]

Comment removed at participant request

[updated 2009-03-31 15:18]

Its amazing to read the claims of some music/television/movie/media companies claims about the whole issue.. mostly claim that DPI is essential to lowering network congestion, as to be able to require authorities to monitor and report any user that is downloading illegal content. Thus clearing the vast majority of bandwidth these criminals use...as in "Canadian Music Publishers Association" letter They also compare their need for legal privacy invasion, to the Police's invading the privacy of SUSPECTED Pedophiles, child porn distrabution. And their comments on the big ISP's Promoting illegal sharing by advertising "to upgrade to high speed access in order to download music faster....at a time when there were no legal download services in Canada"
Uh.. I was under the belief that current Canadian laws have made download copywrited files legal, but illegal to upload a copywrited item.. At least I remember reading this a while back

Now whether Canadian Music Publishers Association agrees with that law or not is irrelavent.. That is the law as it stands..
It seems to me, that every industry that is locked into a very profitable yet antiquated business model, is voicing there opinions VERY strongly, and spending millions on having their voices heard. But the CRTC has NOT been mandated to protect media industries current profit or lack of initiative in modernizing their business models with the coming of the age of information..

[updated 2009-03-31 15:20]

Congrats to the CRTC making this issue open and public by placing it online. I am cautiously optimistic that responses here will be considered seriously.

This forum however needs to be better publicized to ensure it reaches a large enough audience.

[updated 2009-03-31 15:29]

Traffic management is something that an ISP should only have to do as a last resort. It should also only be a temporary measure until the network can be upgraded. There is no valid purpose for it on DSL connections as the line to the CO is not shared as it is for cable internet. Applying traffic managemant at a point before the traffic reaches a wholesale ISPs network is illegitimate for this reason and should not be possible without the consent of the wholesale ISP.

DPI is a technology that should not be used for traffic management. The very way it inspects the traffic in order to manage it is a violation of privacy. Contrary to the findings of the CRTC, DPI does look beyond the header of the traffic in order to manage it. There are further uses of DPI all of which I are illegitimate in terms of privacy and the neutrality with which internet connections should be supplied. I do not trust Bell and others not to attempt to use DPI for these other purposes.

[updated 2009-03-31 15:47]

I think that it is very important to examine the role of an ISP vs. what services they provide. Their original role was solely to deliver digital data to your door from the internet, much like the telephone system connected people's voices. But unlike how the telephone system didn't care if people started to connect computers over the phone lines (change how the system is applied), some ISPs are claiming that they need to now control how their system is being used. On top of that, they are controlling it in a way that the average user is not aware of the implications of that oversight.

This situation is ridiculous. The ISP should not police what type of data that you are transferring or how it is transferred. The only tool that I think that they should be allowed to utilize is assigning priority to the packets for real-time, critical applications such as VOIP or interactive video.

An earlier commenter stated that traffic management is one of the most effective recourses an ISP has against illegal downloaders and bandwidth hogs. I completely disagree on many different levels. Firstly, it isn't the ISP's responsibility to make sure that you aren't doing anything illegal, much like the telephone system doesn't stop criminals talking about planning a bank robbery or the hardware store doesn't care if I use the hammer I bought there to break into houses. Secondly, "bandwidth hogging" due to P2P applications is something that is completely under the control of an ISP. If they choose to, they could charge their users for the amount of data that they transfer. Suddenly you have no "abusers" since it becomes too expensive for a user to be one or the ISP can now afford to supply more bandwidth to those busier areas and reap the rewards of those rich, high bandwidth users.

In short, allowing the ISPs to dictate what content and how you obtain and interact with it is not beneficial to the user in any way or to society as a whole. An ISP should be responsible for only transferring the data between different parties - they should not be in the business of censoring what type of data I have access to or dictating what applications I use to transfer that data. In the digital age, all information whether it is text, voice, video, or a proprietary data format (eg. a spreadsheet) uses the same building blocks. It is all just bits of binary data, and in my opinion, the ISP should only view it as such.

Please, do not let the ISPs control how we can access the internet's content. Going down that road only provides us with: more vendor lock-in, breaking up the generic internet services into subsections that they can charge different rates for different access to, providing unwanted services and vertical marketing, and supreme control and knowledge over what information you are transferring. All of these scenarios stifle innovation and restrict the flexibility that is the internet. Finally, be wary - the digital age is a fascist's dream.

[updated 2009-03-31 16:55]

Traffic shapping is a disguised bandwith grab by companies that would like to use that bandwith for their own products. Bell and others would like to put limits on p2p technologies (which by the way are often used in a perfectly legall exchange of data as for example linux software distibution, let's not equall torrents with illegal music or movie downloads...) to free additional banwith so they can saturate it again with their own products like Internet TV. Bandwith capacity has to grow to support multimedia streaming and such bandwith should be resolved by expanding capacity and bringing in new players to the market. Do you remember 1980 Telephone Long Distance charges ?

If expanding banwith capacity is for some reason not possible, we should separate the function of providing infrastructure and providing services to avoid conflict of interest. Controlling a public network bandwith and at the same time providing paid services on that network that saturate the infrastructure are the real reason for traffic shapping proposal.

[updated 2009-03-31 17:14]

Interestingly, until I had to research this issue to submit a complaint to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunication Services I was not directly affected by traffic Management. I do have some limited voluntary experience with congestion in the electrical transmission and distribution systems. There are a lot of similarities including dealing with former monopolies forced to share their resources.

The issue is far more complex than traffic shaping in that a recently submitted tarrif proposes to cap all residential services. Both of these issues must be simultaneously addressed otherwise we will soon have a non-performing Canadian Internet.

All of these potential problems can be dealt with but it will require forced co-operation from all parties.

My list of "givens" is as follows:

1) Internet infrastructure must somehow be paid for.
2) Past monopolies must be forced to "play fair". Over the years they have developed a corporate culture truly believing that they are the guardian and owner of the resource, they know best and dislike people and agencies "looking over their shoulders".
3) Past monopolies want to "crush" the competition and must be forced to realize that competition is not going away.
4) Past monopolies must learn to compete based solely on price and service.

The solution to our future internet needs is not conceptually difficult if the individual components of the service is broken down into pieces and priced accordingly including but not limited to the basic service ,"the last mile" and increased bandwidth. The company that operates the particular portion of the "system" should be paid for services contracted by others including a reasonable but not excessive profit. Additionally, a percentage of the charges must be reserved for future infrastructure and bandwidth. These costs must be carefully reviewed and challenged for accuracy.

The following are my comments and questions on 2 of the recent tarrif applications"

1) Caps (60 GB)

a) There are no data to suggest that 60 GB is the correct number to include in the upper tier of residential internet access. Additionally, I can't fiqure out the how these caps were prorated to the lower speed accounts. If I had to guess the number was "pulled out of the air" to match or surpass the cable competition.

b) There are no data to suggest what a GB of bandwidth really costs hence at the moment a charge to customers is at best arbitrary.

c) Once bandwidth is accurately costed people using less than the limit and/or the average should be credited by an amount equal to the reduced bandwith use.

d) If applied, the cap must be agreed to based on input from all parties not dictated by but one of the affected parties.

e) If caps are applied, the user must have instantaneous access to their usage. Delays in receiving this data for days or weeks will not change anyone's use and will result in billing fights.

2) Network Management

a) Network management techniques should only be used when the network is truly strained. No data has been presented indicating that network is overloaded.

b) Users must be able to instaneously determine the status and type of management being utilized.

c) At times that network management is being applied usage should not accrue to any cap limits as the user is not "getting what they paid for".

I know of no other public service (ie electric utilities) that uses both network management and caps. "Pay as you play" is fine based on real costs but setting up a system with both network management and caps is unworkable, unfair and will not create the conditions required to create a vibrant Canadian internet.

It is time that all parties be forced to the table to discuss and resolve our future internet requirements including costs and how we pay for the infrastruture and services.

This must be undertaken by the CRTC as soon as possible!

Regards!

[updated 2009-03-31 18:31]

Businesses are starting to employ peer-to-peer as a way to deploy their online products. This could be demos of software, or even media content paid for by the enduser. This trend is accelerating and throttling will cause many problems down the road. There is no way to identify which P2P applications are used for commercial purposes, and which arent.

Canada must stand out as a country that does not hinder the development of online businesses. Fair use the bandwidth for whatever way the customer chooses, should be on the foremost of the regulators, who work for the public. Right now the public is rapidly losing faith in the government regulators to fairly represent the public.

Even 3rd party ISPs that leases lines.equipment from either Bell or Rogers are *against* throttling. The ones who are pro-throttling are the big boys Rogers, Bell, Shaw and Videotron. The smallers players can make money so why cant Rogers and Bell? Throttling also eliminates the competitive advantage that the smaller ISPs like Teksaavy have.

Throttling benefits no one except the large ISPs. Most informed endusers are against throttling, vast majority of small to medium ISPs are also against throttling. So why are the regulators constantly siding with the large ISPs, from throttling to data caps each month? It looks damn suspicious, and the public is rightly cynical towards the government for caving in to big companies.

Canada is supposed to be one of the most technologically advanced nations, yet we have large corporate interests that successfully manipulate the government for the preservation of their own profit line, even at the detriment of smaller companies and the general public.

Endusers must have the right to determine what online content is important to them, without some money-grabbing big ISP forcing decisions down their throats. Fair use without bias towards any data should be the way to go - that means no throttling.

[updated 2009-03-31 18:35]

Quite simply, different protocols all have the same ability to be abused. I use P2P, one of the types of traffic blocked to download and distribute open source software. Others are able to phrase my thoughts on network neutrality better, and why it is important in maintaining a competitive technology sector.

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."

"Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use ... Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident. Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content."

Canada is in a precarious situation with regards to the debate of network neutrality due to the limited options for high speed ISPs. The free market is not in a position to offer competing plans for different services. The next few years will determine foreign investments in Canada's IT industry, and without regulation, I fear that Canada will become a failed experiment in internet filtering.

[updated 2009-03-31 19:05]

Net neutrality is a vital part of the Internet, if we allow ISP to chose which protocol gets throttled and which don't or worst, which content is accessible or not, we will open the door wide open for abusive practices from ISPs.

ISPs are providing a service advertised under specific terms and then complains when their users are using too much of it while respecting those terms. Trying to limit access of the advertised service is somewhat dishonest.

If they can't provide for what they are advertising, maybe they ought to advertise something they can provide or else upgrade their network to respond to the demand instead of trying to reshape the Internet.

[updated 2009-03-31 20:45]

Traffic shaping would only help the big media corporations by throttling other distribution mediums , which have perfectly legitimate uses. Bit Torrent, for example, is great for distributing perfectly legal Linux ISO's as well as efficient and low cost distribution of independent music and films.

[updated 2009-03-31 21:48]

Here's my take on this problem:

I am paying for X Mbits of bandwidth, not "up to" despite the deceptive marketing. While I understand certain system conditions may not result in 100% utilization being possible, it is completely unreasonable to be paying for 6Mbits, and then be throttled down to 300Kbits 100% of the time. If I wanted a 300Kbits per second connection I would pay for one.

If Telus, Bell, Rogers and Shaw were not also vendors for a television product, it might be easier for them to claim that one small portion of their customers is responsible for the majority of bandwidth being used. However this isn't the case at all. All of them offer a television and a telephone service in addition to their internet service, therefor it is in their best interests of degrading all forms of video and audio distribution, since there is no competition.

The resellers, eg Uniserve, Teksavvy, Primus, 3web, utilize one of the four ISP's last mile, in addition to having to rent space/equipment somewhere on their network. Thus being subject to any throttling, deep packet inspection or interference.

The abuse argument is just a guise for the ISP's to cripple competition to their internet product while at the same time degrading competitive video and audio distribution systems, and time sensitive audio and video streaming.

If you want to get into privacy issues, what Rogers is/was doing with intercepting unable-to-resolve-address failures amounts to a breech of privacy. Injecting ads into pages is the same as a man-in-the-middle attack that users have been warned about for years. If rogers can do it, who's to say some malware on the computer can't do it to? This needs to be classified, and remain a crime so users don't get used to ISP tampering and confuse malware man in the middle attacks with it.

ISP's should be required, if they are allowed to use deep packet inspection, to also shutdown the connection to users who are infected with malware (See conficker C update spreading today), chances are they will then say it's not their job and too much cost. I'm sorry ISP's but you can't use a bandwidth management technique on your customers if you aren't legitimately contacting users infected with malware to have their machines fixed. Otherwise let's ban DPI entirely.

Here's the solution that I believe is fair:
- ISP's must advertise a minimum bandwidth guarantee. If I pay for a 6/1 connection, I should get a 6/1 connection and be able to max it out, regardless of what software I use.
- ISP's can then advertise a burstable speed, so say I have a 6/1 minimum but have a burstable of 15/1 , this is a speed that the connection is "up to" physically connected at. If somehow two P2P users were on the same ISP they would see this burstable bandwidth as a top speed achievable as only the ISP's own network is used.
- Caps are bad, but not evil. The ISP should offer capped usage tiers (10GB/30GB/60GB/100GB) for low-usage customers, and per/GB tiers for high usage customers. This would level the playing field and offer disincentive to maxing out the bandwidth 24/7.

P2P applications thrive when there is equal upload and download sharing. Video especially would be shared much faster, and therefor have much less congestion if the video downloads were completed faster, instead of meddled with by traffic management practices. Software such as Azureus has free legal content in addition to pay or subscription content, yet the distribution mechanism utilizes the same torrent protocol. The current trend of asynchronous bandwidth connections (2/1 3/1 5/1 6/1 10/1 15/1) further impedes this since the connections were designed with the idea that users would download more than they would ever upload. However there are users who would gladly share everything they ever downloaded and thus act as a local connection on the ISP's network instead of having the ISP's bandwidth used to connect to foreign users.

However such users are rare because of the threat of lawsuits from American interests, users who "leech" and never share, and limited capacity of upload capacity. So the overall usefulness of P2P applications is completely dependant on ISP's not interfering.

I have a reseller as an ISP, during any point in the day, my 6/1 connection suddenly drops all connections (even SSL connections) and bandwidth becomes squeezed down to less than 300kbps (about 50KB/sec), it makes the connection useless. I previously had a 6/1 connection from the ISP who owns the last mile, but had their television service. The internet portion of this service was only 1.5Mbit, but never throttled. Since the IPTV portion would be affected if they throttled the last mile, obviously the ISP is capable of setting a minimum and maximum bandwidth on a per subscriber basis without the need for damaging bandwidth management practices (like reset packets, which my current ISP is certainly using.) Sometimes this reset packet attack reaches 30% of packets and makes watching cbc online a horrible experience. Don't tell me to switch ISP's though, because unless I buy the ISP who owns the last mile's TV product, I won't get a connection from anyone that I can use to the advertised bandwidth.

And the cable providers, even if you buy their TV product, will threaten you with terms of service violations if you use P2P applications, regardless of what you use it for. Inexperienced users and children/students may start using services without knowing if something is legal or not. There is nothing wrong with warning users that their "internet conneciton" appears to be exhibiting a pattern consistent with malware, software or video piracy, or whatever else and then relaying to them third-party reports. However users should know their rights as well, that they do not need to read or respond to the reports, and that the ISP only provides the connection and is not acting as an agent of the third party.

Legal video download sites (example, www.funimation.com) are degraded and "buffering" showing up every 10 seconds when the ISP's throttling is in effect. I can disconnect everything plugged into the ADSL modem, and connect my mac to it directly and still get throttled.

Here's a good analogy. If I have an electrical service panel, I'm paying for usage, not what I'm doing with the water or electricity. I know the pipe is of X capacity. 100Amp service, and If I really really want to, I should be able to max out that 100Amp service from time to time. But the bandwidth management practices of ISP's are much closer to being given 30Amp service, and then having the power out everytime I turn on the heat or operate the toaster. Since toasters and heaters use 10-20 amps to use.

If you want to make a P2P analogy, it would be like everyone in the neighbourhood was connected with 30A service, but having everyone over for a BBQ on the weekend, so everyone brings something they cooked around the same time. The traffic management would be the electrical company cutting the power to the neighbourhood everytime they decide to have the BBQ, because combined they are all maxing out their power connection but the electical company's connection to the neighbourhood assumed that only one of them would ever use the full 30A at once. Back to the internet analogy, everytime a new episode of something is released, instead of everyone being able to download it within an hour, everyone is instead forced to download it over several hours or days.

So there is no reason for traffic management if the ISP was actually expanding capacity. If the ISP didn't have their own television and telephone services, then one would state the ISP was overselling the bandwidth capacity well beyond the point of being able to function. That is likely Bell's real excuse. Rogers and Shaw do it also because it competes with their television and Pay Per View services.

If I wanted to propose something better. All households should be connected to "internet services" like they are connected to electrical, water, and sewer services. The connection is fixed, but upgradeable, and the service provider can be picked independant of who installed the service. Any television, internet, telephone service should be useable over that connection, not just the one by who installed it.

And let's not get into multiplayer games. Both the patch systems of MMO games and the actual client-server system that multiplayer games utilize are time sensitive, and traffic management techniques make buy-and-download, patch and playing the games horrible experiences.

I want a future where I can download a blueray quality version of a movie within a few minutes, delete it when I run out of space, and being able to redownload it without having to purchase it a second time. If other people in the neighbourhood have fast connections, it should be redownloaded in a few minutes. Not days.

[updated 2009-04-01 10:16]

As I read many of these posts across this forum, they all seem to be missing a common thought. The amount of devices using the internet is growing exponentially. The amount of bandwidth I use today will hopefully be miniscule amount compared to what will be required in the near future. Today we only access the internet by very few means, a computer, cell phones, etc...

These issues of capping bandwidth or shaping traffic when you reach a particular amount will be useless when every device in your life will be able to connect or utilize the internet in some way. What will happen when every car, dishwasher, TV, MP3... needs a connection. The amount of bandwidth an individual will use will go far beyond what we currently use now.

This is why the CRTC needs to be taking a more proactive approach in stimulating the development to support this amount of bandwidth usage. These ideas may be okay for now but its all just a band aid solution to a greater problem

[updated 2009-04-01 13:04]

If you want to impact the Liberal Party's policy on this I suggest you go to voice.liberal.ca or most quickly to here http://voice.liberal.ca/pages/on_probation/suggestions/145294-shouldn-t-we-invest-in-internet-infrastructure-

[updated 2009-04-01 14:27]

Traffic shaping should be made illegal with stiff fines imposed for doing so.
The isp's are using the excuse that they don't have enough infrastructure to
support bandwith available so they need to throttle and shape traffic. Hogwash.

[updated 2009-04-01 15:23]

There's several key issues that are of importance as we descend further into a society that thrives off CCTV, wire tapping, and now what seems to be a lack of net neutrality. The first issues being the choice of an isp with net neutrality, the second being media democracy, the third being fair business competition, and finally common sense.

The choice issue, is basically that in a free market, if this is a free market, we should have a choice theoretically if net neutrality is something that is important to Canadians. We won't however, and not because it's not important to us, but because all the players, all two of them, are against net neutrality saying the market will regulate itself. The market is not regulating itself, there is no isp that is not throttling content. The CRTC needs to step in because the free market is failing in this case. Not to spur a whole debate on the pro's/con's of a free market, but when your telco and your cable company are your only two options, someone (the CRTC in this case) needs to step in with regulations.

The second issue is media democracy. Bell Globe Media is a massive entity, not that rogers or shaw aren't, but I'll focus on Bell for the moment. BGM owns CTV, and a whole host of other media services. Some of these media services have biased political views. That's no secret, all media does, that's why the web is such a great alternative for real media democracy. Your a bell customer and then all of the sudden all the alternative web media's take awfully long to load, when they do load, so irritating that you give up and rely on Bell for news.

The third point ties us to an even less free market, free society, free entity. The Internet provides a venue for small and medium business to compete with big business. One of these small to medium business's may have a product that competes with one of the telco or cable cartel's product's. All of the sudden that business's media takes a longer time to load. Odd??

This is finally common sense, for those reasons and that Bell/Shaw can't tell me who to take to on the phone, so how come they can tell me what I can and can't do with my internet connection. There's no such nonsense about too many people being on the phone. This is a service. If bell/rogers/shaw/insert media cartel here has too many users of their service, they need to build more infrastructure for that service, not lower the standard of service for those it deems it doesn't want it's customers talking too. The reality again is we can't take our business else where, these are cartels, they have the monopoly.

We already pay too much, and we do pay for the extra bandwith that we use. So if we really want a free market/society/internet, there needs to either be competition, or regulation to ensure there's no preferential treatment for this cartel, or any other.

Thanks.

[updated 2009-04-01 21:33]

Canadian ISPs are using traffic shaping/management as a means to eliminate all competition. As a consumer, I would like the freedom of subscribing to an ISP without having to lock myself into their Phone or Cable TV service. This is 2009, the Internet is the ultimate platform of equality and competition. The CRTC should protect the free market principles of the Internet by ensuring that ISPs are not acting against the interests of the Canadian consumer. Therefore, most (if not all) traffic shaping by ISPs should be banned.

[updated 2009-04-02 10:19]

About using large numbers to fool customers

With Rogers Hi-Speed you pay for 7.5Mb/s download, 512Kb/s upload. Total 8Mb/s. Rogers allows you 60GB/month

So for your money, you can use you fast connection for a grand total of 16 hours and 30 minutes at full speed. After that you quote is gone. That is not what unlimited connection used to be

Would it be acceptable that renting a car for a month, you had the option of driving it at 100Km/h for only 16 hours a month, or that you could drive your car up to a maximum of 1,650 Kms in a month?

Gigabyte sounds like a big number, bit Rogers knows fully well that a Movies on Demand in High Definition will take several Gigabytes to download. Does anybody expects Rogers to not deploy HD Movies on Demand because of the congestion on its network?

I more expect Rogers to continue funding its cable business with the money that I pay for bandwidth that I can use only 16 hours a month

Rogers and Bell are restricting the bandwidth usage, on the network that we paid with our high Canadian prices for several years, to allow for new premium services without having to invest on the additional network equipment required to support them

The sad part is that CRTC approach doesn't give me any legal alternative. Rogers, limited services, throttling and quota. Bell, limited services, throttling and now introducing quotas in the disguise of improved bandwidth

[updated 2009-04-02 12:53]

I find it completely abhorrent that my connection is throttled for completely legal uses; my updates for World of Warcraft are slowed as are my downloads of legal Linux ISO distributions.

I'm paying good money for what is apparently a 16/1 connection yet I can't get more than 300kbps for the things I need it for.

My VOIP connection with Vonnage was throttled hard - when I called Shaw they tried to sell my a QoS package for an additional $10 a month. Needless to say that made their phone service cheaper than what I was paying for with Vonnage - anti-competitive? You bet.

Traffic shaping needs to die. To the politicians out there: if you stand for net neutrality you'll get my vote.

[updated 2009-04-02 13:31]

Shaping and monitoring traffic is much like Wiretaping someone's phone. Being censored from saying chosen words is an attack to liberty and shaping internet traffic to prevent use of some technologies is the same. Preventing people to use some technologies is against evolution and shouldn't be allowed. It's like we were being kept from using electric cars by petrol industries... but now its being kept from using internet technologies by Media companies. Sad thing about filtering is that the victims will be the average people, illegal downloaders and bandwidth hogs will always find the way to counter the filtering. Degrading the whole system to prevent the people from using the internet the wrong way is not the solution.

[updated 2009-04-02 13:36]

The one thing the CRTC should be setting as a number one priority is to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to high speed broad band Internet service so that all Canadians have an equal playing Field, because after purchasing a lot in development and being told by the developer, that both shaw cable and telus would be providing high seep service I learned that shaw wanted $48:000 from us to extend there lines about 2 kilometers and that we are about 1 kilometer to far out for telus to provide ADSL service. After going to my local N.D.P. member of the legislator to find out were I could get some information or help I getting service up hear, it became very apparent to me that the N.D.P. were to scared of a local environmentalist group that didn't want this development to go ahead in the first place and would offer no help

[updated 2009-04-02 14:08]

It shouldn't be in the purview of the ISP to decide what traffic is legitimate, and what traffic is not.

This is a slippery slope - once an ISP believes it has the right to throttle certain types of traffic, we may see throttling of Google search-results because Microsoft has signed a deal with the ISP. Or iTunes downloading quickly at the expense of eMusic because Apple has deeper pockets to buy off your local/national Internet Service Provider.

I agree that certain technologies tend to use as much bandwidth as possible, but ISPs have to share part of the blame - they can't deliver what they've promised to all customers at the same time.

No ISP is capable of providing every customer with the maximum bandwidth promised. That's not the fault of the customers who are simply trying to use what they've been promised.

Finally, an ISP must be crystal clear on what limitations exist on their service. I know the ISP Notifications "topic" is the appropriate section, but separating up posts limits divides and limits the argument being made.

[updated 2009-04-02 14:38]

i feel that the traffic shaping practices by the major Canadian ISP's go against what we signed up with them in the first place. we pay for a speed advertised at rates such as 15mbps but we are limited to that speed as to what we choose to do with the service we pay for. the traffic shaping practices by Eastlink in particular are some of the worst i have seen in this country, and i have had shaw, bell and telus in my days. eastlink say they throttle at peak times, but downloading as much linux stuff as i do, and the free stuff provided over the program vuze, and even my steam client are all throttled back to 5mbps download speed at all times of the day. i do not do any illegal downloading using the bit torrent method of transfer, i certainly am not illegally downloading things on my steam client, as those are all games i have paid for out of my pocket, and any FTP transfers for updated drivers or software i use on my computer are also slowed down. i think it is appalling that in this day and age we are limited to what the big corporations claim we pay for with a service provided to us. the ISP's should not be the internet police, as they are there to provide us with a service we pay for. its false advertising if you ask me, and i feel that we should be getting what we pay for.

[updated 2009-04-02 14:59]

I fully believe its within the rights of the ISPs to throttle bandwidth for uses they deem damaging. If users want unfiltered access to Bittorrent or a video streaming for example, they should pay for it. The issue, however, is that we don't have a choice to switch providers if the one we have doesn't give us what we want.

There are really only two pipelines through which to receive broadband at home, Cable or DSL. It is difficult for other companies to enter the market - they have to lease lines/bandwidth from one of the larger ISPs.

The fact that Bell can push bandwidth shaping to their wholesale customers is an anti-competitive move. There is no differentiation between Bell's services and those provided by these wholesale ISPs - users can't switch providers to receive un-shaped access.

[updated 2009-04-02 16:20]

ISPs provide a service that should be considered "essential" in a nation that wishes to provide a reasonable quality of life to its citizens in the digital age. Education, commercial competitiveness, entertainment, and even the democratic process are significantly dependent on access to the internet. As such, ISPs can have a disproportionate impact on Canadian's daily lives through the business practices that they adopt. It is of great concern to me and many other canadians that online activity be unencumbered by decisions made in the interest of private profit rather than public access.

The issue of traffic management from the citizen standpoint is problematic because the implementations are unpublished and the boundaries of the practice undefined. For example, ISPs advertise bandwidth without informing customers that that bandwidth is subject to degradation depending on how it is used. There are two distinct problems with this situation. The first is that the ISPs are dishonest in their sales pitches. The second, and more worrying, is that the ISPs determine the rules at their sole discretion. What is to stop ISPs from shaping people's consumption of online data by promoting the content of aligned interests through "traffic management" at the expense of competing interests. This is in fact already happening in cases where ISPs throttle the legitimate downloading of large media files, but promote the consumption of their own media (TV, video IM, etc.) through unfettered or even accelerated access.

No one disputes that there is a cost involved in building, maintaining, and improving the infrastructure necessary to provide robust access to online resources. However, the fact that ISPs have at times received public money to undertake these build-outs and that the infrastructure is a fundamental component of everyday life suggests that ISPs should be required to act in a manner consistent with their position. Traffic should be un-managed to guarantee that the desired uses of the ISPs' customers are served and that innovation is not held hostage to the motives of entrenched interests. To compensate, the ISPs should give up advertising and selling bandwidth and charge for consumption. This should be done on a progressive rate such that activity levels beyond the capacity of the existing infrastructure are able to fund improvements. Such a scheme might even be the catalyst for significant upgrades to networks as the revenue generated by upper tier consumption would encourage the ISPs to improve people's access. The role of the CRTC should be to enforce quality standards within such a framework in terms of up-time and through-put levels as well as ensuring that ISPs are actually competing rather than colluding in the market place.

[updated 2009-04-02 17:16]

Bell has no right to throttle wholesalers, Well I do agree they can manage there own subscribers how they see fit. Bell managing DSL wholesaler providers subscribers traffic is not acceptable. I also believe Bells Congestion is either fictional or there own doing, The statistics submitted to the CRTC only contained statistics for ATM portion of there networks ignoring all of the area's with modern ethernet based network segments. And the congestion coincides with bell raising there speed offering from 5megs to 7megs (Wholesalers are still limited to 5megs). This leads me to believe that bell had not invested in the necessary network infrastructure to be able to offers such speeds but chose to offer them anyways rather then fall behind other isp's speed offerings.

[updated 2009-04-03 09:36]

The CRTC needs to view this issue in the larger scope of things. Unfortunately, in Canada we have an oligopoly situation. A situation where the large media companies control access to Television as well as Internet.

These media companies are realizing that the Television model will soon die and that an internet business model will take its place.

But old habits die hard and they will cling to their revenue streams, no matter how outdated their business model is, using this oligopoly to ensure that their oligopoly remains.

This stifles growth in Canada.

Deep Packet Inspection is just but one of the many possible ways large media companies will prevent new technologies and new ways of consuming and producing media, from emerging.

The CRTC made the correction choice when they allowed wholesalers to sell DSL based internet solutions. Its of the upmost importance that the CRTC continue allowing real competition to exist and force Bell top stop the throttling of data.

[updated 2009-04-04 07:39]

I strongly believe, as a voting, taxpaying citizen (not consumer!) that private entities seeking to sell access to the Internet to Canadians should be barred from examining traffic for any reason.

The "traffic management techiques" retail telecommunications providers are attempting to introduce amount to carte-blanche when it comes to serving as a gatekeeper for new commerce and recreation. The providers already have competing services, and the conflict of interest (perceived and real) is just too great.

The Internet's first "killer application" was private communications between individuals and businesses (email). Virtually all popular services today can harken back to these roots, and reflect the principles therein.

I believe it's very dangerous to allow private entities to use traffic management techniques whose logic is based on the contents of those private communications (e.g.: protocol in use, source/destination addresses, etc.).

I am 100% in favour of traffic management in principle, and 100% in favour of traffic management which is completely use-agnostic. For instance, basing traffic management decisions on bytes used (as opposed to the content of those bytes).

The world over, this has proven a cheap and effective way of managing networks. Why large Canadian Internet service providers are trying to "manage traffic" using techniques that are an order of magnitude more expensive and less reliable is left as an exercise to the reader.

[updated 2009-04-05 06:17]

ISPs are contracted to provide "Internet Service" i.e. transmission of computer data. If I pay for Internet Service then that is the service I should receive. Extraneous reading, inspection or analysis of my data is unwarranted and clearly problematic with respect to citizen privacy and fair commercial competition.

The amount of data bandwidth is not infinite, so some traffic management may become necessary. However, such management should never depend on the content or purpose of the data.

Limiting data transmission on the basis of the data protocol clearly flies in the face of the fundamental nature and purpose of the Internet system, will limit innovation and compromise fair commercial competition.

Because the telecom backbone relies on a monopoly or near-monopoly of providers with privileged access to infrastructure, government-imposed regulation is justified.

[updated 2009-04-05 11:18]

Internet traffic management is currently reaching a startling norm in the telecommunications sector. While traffic management technologies are becoming increasingly intelligent (Finnie, 2009; p. 3), the dependence on their presence grows continually and the lack of innovation to develop more comprehensive, less evasive measures becomes thrown out the window.

While it is becoming a norm to traffic shape the internet, it is also becoming a norm to violate privacy. Oftentimes, traffic shaping may impede on the accelerated download or upload of someone's files, it could even be an individual trying to download an attachment. Despite the increasing intelligence of these Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technologies, subscribers/consumers are unaware that someone is tapping their wireless service to modify and information gather their interests/monitor their activities.

This trend is also shifting to mobile users, partly due to the "congestion". As these technologies begin to advance and evolve rapidly, the consequences will become disastrous and "unforseen", which I predict telcos will say. Furthermore, the lack of standard appropriation of this technology and no government involvement to regulate the use of DPI is giving an incentive for telcos to develop a panopticon. It will eventually become a surveillance tool used to monitor the behaviour of online users, they are even becoming subscriber-oriented!

Robert Hester's, an Osgoode Hall law student, submission insisted that DPI can be used for more progressive measures, as in promoting canadian content, but will that really be the case with these telcos yearning for more control and regulation on the frequencies owned by the public? It does not make any sense to give up your right, rabidwombat, and your privacy and say it is OK for telcos to manage traffic.

Protecting intellectual copyright may not even be a primary interest to telcos, it is only primary if they can shape traffic to maximize the capacity of the last mile and reduce "congestion".

Please everyone, be real about this.

[updated 2009-04-06 22:49]

Internet traffic management practices have made it hard for me to have a conversation over Skype (a VoIP provider), and have increased the need for page refreshes when using data intensive applications. And for the $55 I’m paying for 7mbps… it’s clear I’m not getting what I’m paying for.

People who have answered on this forum that they have not noticed a change, are those who do not remember or who have never had a time when they data was being throttled, to be able to tell the difference.

[updated 2009-04-07 09:55]

Traffic Management techniques need to be outlined and defined by the commission as these techniques can both benefit and hurt the public- depending how they are used and for what purpose. Controlling traffic through the "Traffic Prioritization Tool" in returns improves the quality of the service but can also block competing services- allowing the ISPS to allocate bandwidth. minimizing latency is in the publics best interest- however just because an ISP doesn’t want me to visit Hotmail- doesn’t mean it should take longer to load than Gmail. Discrimination needs to identified and controlled through the commission.

[updated 2009-04-07 10:33]

If a specific user is asking that traffic be delivered to their connection it should be delivered to that user as they requested. It becomes an abuse issue only if that user complains about the traffic they are receiving. Traffic management can be used in abuse or security issues, but if an user is not complaining about being attacked their connection should not be managed.
No ILEC should be managing the traffic of another provider just because they provide last mile.
This is a discussion about traffic and network management not intellectual property rights, so please keep your obvious agendas out of this discussion.
I want my low pings back.

[updated 2009-04-08 21:46]

There are a few irritating issues I wish to express:

+ ISP should not be allowed to discriminate between connection and data types (throttling).

+ DPI techniques to discriminate against certain connection violates my privacy by exposing my packets to analysis which also requires storage and further security and privacy complications.

+ The issue of 'who owns the IP' should be cleared and defined as a lease which gives temporary responsibility to the subscriber, thus giving my finer control over my privacy.
+ Break the ISP monopoly! I live in Toronto, however the only available ISP with acceptable connection rates is Rogers. No other ISP can offer me comparable speeds, thus locking me to only one choice.

+ Help regulate mobile internet. One example is how Rogers blocks VPN connections to the iPhone they sold me (which comes with VPN feature).

+ Help encourage further ISP investments in infrastructure upgrades to finally offer Fiber-to-the-Home and other fast connection technologies.

I am grateful for this initiative in hearing the public opinion.

[updated 2009-04-09 22:40]

My problem with this whole thing is when the owner of that 'last mile' starts making decisions based on the data they're transferring.

Bell, in this case, has no contact with the consumer. If I get my Internet from company X, then I have a contract with company X. Bell is obligated to provide the 'last mile' service because the Canadian people gave them the monopoly on it. The data doesn't belong to them. It isn't up to them to make any decision based on that data. They shouldn't even know what that data is. They simply lease a digital line from Point A to Point B. The fact that the data is 'Internet' is irrelevant to Bell. A 'black box' of digital data.

What is sent down that line is between my ISP and me, and how that data is controled is up to my ISP. If I don't like what they do with that data, then I should be able to change to another ISP who handles data differently.

Bell is the middle man here and (to use yet another IT metaphor) they're akin to the postman. I might have a contract with Amazon.com to send me a book by the mail, and Amazon will have to use Canada Post. If Canada post starts getting overloaded during the Christmas season and opens all the mail, see's my book and determines that it's "not important enough" to be delivered on time... well, we call that illegal.

If there /are/ reasons that the system is overloaded, fine. Bell can make an application to the CRTC to increase the base fees they charge to compensate them for the extra upgrades, or to lower the maximum allowed bandwidth -- but globally, not on a 'We're going to look at your data and make a personal judgment call on its value' basis.

And the idea that people are 'hogging' bandwidth is equally ridiculous. It is /impossible/ to take more than your fair share of bandwidth. The download limits are set, and cannot be exceeded. If you have a 6Mbit line, you can download at 6Mbit/sec. There is no way to exceed that. The problem Bell is having is people are actually using the bandwidth they obligated to offer.

Again, if Bell is unable to provide the 6Mbit/sec limit that the CRTC has mandated they must offer between ISPs and their customers, then Bell had better ask the CRTC to lower that limit. Of course, if the CRTC refuses they had better start upgrading....

[updated 2009-04-10 01:36]

In response to the overwhelming critique of traffic management, I must make an antithetical statement. It is true that our mail is not opened and our phone lines are not (usually) tapped into. A response to such remarks may actually rest in the critique: those resources are still available to use without intrusion.
The obvious reality of the situation is that the possibility of abuse with the above, archaic, systems is not nearly as accessible; not nearly as large a threat. The amount of effortless damage possible in the online world is colossal. A parallel, as ridiculous as it may seem, can be drawn with the advent of weapons of mass destruction so long ago. Suddenly, with the flick of a finger (or a switch) countless lives could perish. Somewhat of a similar phenomenon is developing with the advent and advance of the online world: a click of a finger can easily cause unthinkable and irreparable injury and break countless laws.
Traffic management is in large part responding to real world problems and abuses that, not only need to currently be controlled, but will grow exponentially in the future. I am not attempting a crusade for traffic management, but I feel we need to take a more realistic and less extreme approach in the argument.
Perhaps our arguments should be more about limiting the amount or type of intrusions/management rather than all-out bans on intruding whatsoever. Extremist approaches may not only be inappropriate, considering the reality of the situation, but impractical. It is unrealistic to think the concept of traffic management could be completely terminated at this point in time. As undesirable as it may be to concede in an area we feel so strongly about, even in small part, mitigating an undesirable situation may be more beneficial in the end, than petitioning for a goal that will never come to fruition.
Furthermore, while it may not only futile to concentrate on trying to avoid something that will surely occur, we may actually be ignoring other issues that could actually cause greater grief. A somewhat far-fetched example (the type that gets people’s attention), is embedded within this debate. That being the Bell/Rogers “binopoly”. Take it one step further and imagine the effects of Bell and Rogers merging in some capacity. As unrealistic as this may seem, the merger of titan corporations, who were formerly direct competitors, is not a foreign concept. Where would the state of traffic management be then?
I, myself, concede that the practice of traffic management may be overly intrusive, with the potential of becoming even intolerably, or dare I say, unconstitutionally so. Certain basic rights, such as freedom of speech, are clearly at stake. And yes, in many ways the process is ineffective and inefficient: there are ways to escape ISP scrutiny, and many more are sure to develop, as a function of the development of traffic management systems no less.
However, I stress that this is just the beginning of learning how to deal with a new problem. I don’t feel that we should critique this process as harshly as we have, but rather direct and guide it in a way that is most mutually agreeable. The best venue for such a practice is in a web forum just like this one.

[updated 2009-04-14 00:59]

Discriminating specific protocols that travel over the Internet is a major concern. Coupled with the fact that the decisions on the choices of protocols to throttle are made by companies who can and do have conflicts of interest in current and future Internet products entices monopolistic behaviour.

If an ISP is unable to deliver advertised speeds to users, then they have a capacity issue that needs to be addressed either through increased infrastructure or lowered speeds to their users for ALL Internet traffic. Marketing speeds that cannot be delivered or are not provided for all protocols should not be allowed.

Also, Bell's decisions on how to manage their network should not be enforced on other third party ISPs. Otherwise you take away one of the major elements a third party ISP can use to differentiate themselves from the major players. It should be up to each ISP on how they manage their network. They are leasing a last mile line from Bell that is supposed to provide a specific amount of bandwidth, which should be delivered as per Bell's contractual obligations.

[updated 2009-04-14 12:21]

I am a Teksavvy client, Teksavvy is my ISP. I signed up with Teksavvy in part because they had a strong stance AGAINST throttling and has been fighting Bell to get throttling removed from their service ever since it has become known that Bell had quietly extended its ADSL throttling from its own Sympatico to ALL ADSL subscribers along Bell Sympatico's own.

When Bell Sympatico started throttling its subscribers, Sympatico stuck out like a sore thumb for being the only (or very few) throttled ADSL provider in "Bell Land" and Sympatico subscribers started deserting in droves to cheaper, faster and better 3rd-party ADSL ISPs. A few months later, Bell committed the highly suspicious act of unilaterally and silently imposing a throttle on ALL ADSL SERVICES. Due to the total lack of transparency on Bell's part, there is cause to suspect Bell used its monopoly power as the last-mile network operator to level the playing field for its own Sympatico service by throttling all ADSL services. It seems reasonable to suspect the argument of congestion due to P2P traffic has been provided as a plausible distraction to delay antitrust action.

Right now, Bell uses P2P traffic as an excuse to do wholesale throttling on its network at the BAS level and this had the direct effect of eliminating a key differentiating feature from third-party ISPs that compete with its own Sympatico. If Bell is allowed to continue doing this now, what new excuses will Bell come up with after VoIP, downloadable HD movie rentals, IPTV and HD-IPTV start eating away at Bell's POTS, ExpressVu and PPV market shares while pushing bandwidth usage to record highs?

If there is any truth behind Bell's claims of network congestion, these issues will only become far worse than they are now and Bell will no longer be able to write their problems off on the back of P2P after bandwidth-intensive services become mainstream. At best, throttling is only delaying the inevitable by a year or two. Once the bandwidth-intensive genie comes out of the bottle, there will be no going back.

To provide ADSL service to me, Teksavvy pays various recurring fees to Bell such as AGAS (~$1800/gigabit/month) and the copper loop/DSLAM (~$22.50/subscriber/month). These fees are meant to cover Bell's expenses incurred to provide said services plus markup. Bell is providing the network connectivity to tunnel PPPoE sessions from my LAN to Teksavvy's routers at 121 Front Street, Toronto. Teksavvy provides me with the actual Internet Protocol connectivity through the PPPoE tunnel established using Bell's infrastructure.

Teksavvy currently leases 7Gbps of AGAS capacity and related accommodations on Bell's network, it is Bell's OBLIGATION as a common carrier to ensure its network can deliver the agreed traffic volume to the vast majority of Teksavvy's subscribers under the vast majority of circumstances with no further compensation. Until the leased capacity is exceeded, Bell should have no authority whatsoever over what traffic gets pushed through PPPoE tunnels between any given ISP's subscribers and said ISP's routers. Everything happening in said PPPoE tunnels should remain strictly between said subscriber and ISP. If Bell's network is struggling with the load, it is Bell's DUTY as a common carrier to ensure its infrastructure can cope with demand under all normal circumstances including typical peak usage. Should the current tariffs be insufficient to provide reasonable coverage of upgrade costs, Bell should submit a request for revision with all justificative pieces for independent verification.

As an ADSL internet and Bittorrent user, I can attest that Bell's throttling is wrecking havoc on my World of Warcraft and Ventrilo usage in the presence of moderate P2P traffic: the throttling cuts my upstream bandwidth from 70KB/s to 30KB/s, causing Ventrilo to continuously disconnect to the point of being unusable and makes my WoW latency skyrocket from 200 to an unplayable 2000+ milliseconds even if I limit my P2P traffic to 20KB/s. I did not have those issues before Bell's throttling of my Teksavvy service came to be.

Teksavvy is my ISP, not man-in-the-middle Bell.
Any internet throttling done by Bell should be strictly restricted to Bell's own internet (Sympatico) subscribers, everything else should be treated as common carrier traffic.

Where 3rd-party ADSL ISPs are concerned, Bell is a common carrier for PPPoE traffic. Make it behave like one, make it stop throttling ADSL so 3rd-party ISPs can go back to offering unmolested services, make Bell quit trying to lock down its competition into neanderthal-grade Sympatico service specifications with UBB in what seems to me like yet another bid to save its sub-par Sympatico service from being run out of business.

The foul play at Bell MUST be stopped.

[updated 2009-04-14 17:34]

The use of traffic management techniques should not be allowed.

The use that Bell has done has specifically target certain protocols (in this case P2P). In order to detect this, you require deep packet inspection (DPI). This is like opening a letter and checking inside. This is an invasion of privacy. The envelope is like the packet. The written mailing address is like the IP address. You don't know what protocol it uses on the outside. It can be HTTP, FTP, etc. This information is in the data layer and the data is the contents inside this envelope. Does Canadapost have the right to open letters? No. So neither should ISPs.

Also why is P2P targetted? Bell own filing showed that HTTP bandwidth was the highest. Sites like YouTube and other video streaming sites are the reason for this high bandwidth. Watching a video consumes a lot of bandwidth especially if you use HD which YouTube provides. Also it is easier to limit bandwidth for HTTP because you can filter by the IP address. Like for example, if data is coming from 1.2.3.4 = then limit bandwidth. This requires no DPI because the address is provided. Why has Bell taken the harder and more expensive route?

[updated 2009-04-14 22:17]

Many jurisdictions restrict traffic flow on highways by placing toll booths along the path and force commuters to pay a fee to pass along. Those who wish to avoid toll highways can if they do not mind taking the non-express route which adds hours onto each commute. Toll booths create a privatized based highway within a publicly funded highway project; those who can afford the toll can use the public highway - those who cannot are dammed to the old road.

As an Internet user since 1993, I express deep concern with placing toll booths at points along the information highway. Google, as one example, benefits from free access to the world and as a result they are able to provide their services to customers for free while generating billions in revnue along the way. I suspect that Google, as well as many others, will be forced to change Internet communters a transit fee to access their services.

Traffic management might sound like a solution to Internet congestion, but I feel that allowing ISPs to limit traffic flow in different areas will create nothing but large clusters within our web. Right now we many different sites competing for users so they can generate revenue from advertisements. This is driving a race to develop new technologies to stay on top. I believe that companies might be forced to enter into agreements or mergers so they can offer customers a rainbow subscription package to access the sites they use, (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc).

I hope the CRTC does the right thing when they make their ruling this summer. Would turning ISPs into the proverbial troll under the bridge solve anything?

[updated 2009-04-16 12:28]

The cardinal virtue of the Internet as we know it is that it is a "dumb" network that does not rely on expectations of or judgments on the kind of traffic that flows over it. The seeds of this idea are clear enough as far back as Licklider's ARPA-IPTO visioning papers from the early 1960s, and then clearly formulated in Saltzer, Reed, & Clark's classic "end-to-end argument" paper in the early 80s. This is the foundation of the Internet we all know and love; if we undermine this principle, we end up with a different kind of network.

The rationale for traffic shaping and packet inspection is protection of business models. The trouble is that the only business models that can be protected are the ones that already exist. Protecting existing interests here is specifically at the expense of future opportunities.

The public interest is best served by keeping the Internet infrastructure as neutral—which is to say "dumb"—as possible. The model of a simple public utility (a notion Licklider foresaw nearly 50 years ago) is the right one, not a content- or specific service-driven one.

[updated 2009-04-16 17:50]

ISP traffic management amounts to censorship which is inherently dangerous to freedom and democracy. As such it should be outlawed.

[updated 2009-04-20 08:34]

I left Bell Sympatico due to the fact that I did not agree with their policies and the poor service. I am now with Teksavvy and came very close to cancelling that when I was once again faced with Bell's incompetence. When Teksavvy introduced their home phone service I called to subscribe and ended up with no service for over three weeks. I got royally pissed off with Teksavvy and came very close to cancelling internet and phone. Turns out, Bell was responsible as they had pulled the plug on me and they kept telling me that they couldn't find me in their database and that the problem was at my end despite my taking two days off so that their technicians could look inside my house when all of the time the problem was caused by them!
I pay Teksavvy for 5Mb access to the internet why am I SEVERELY restricted by BELL in my access during primetime hours? Why is Bell's business model affecting another indepent reseller?
When will their monopoly end for real. They now want to impose caps and pay per use on their customers and resellers, effectively taking away what little competitive advantage the reseller had.
It's about time the CRTC start defending and protecting the rights of the Canadian Taxpayers and stop defending Big Bell.

[updated 2009-04-20 08:38]

Traffic Shaping undermines the internet and is the first step down an extremely dark path. Once you start identifying what content should and should not be slowed, why shouldn't an ISP slow or stop the speeds of its competitors website? Or this page? Or any site which doesn't match up with the views of the ISP. What if it suddenly got political, and an ISP owner who happened to be Conservative or Liberal started blocking NDP pages

Furthermore, the CRTC has already seen the data to prove there is no bandwidth issue. The problem the ISPs say is there simply is not there, and will not be there as long as we continue to improve our infrastructure. Countries like Japan are able to support this kind of traffic with no restrictions. The ISP's basically want to limit bandwidth to things they feel they can get away with, so that they can market more of their excess bandwidth and make more money, screwing the Canadian consumer.

[updated 2009-04-20 10:27]

Blaming everything on P2P applications is bogus. Those who are using P2P legitimately are being unfairly penalized. And P2P is only going to increase as it is an efficient way to transfer large files.

And lastly, such restrictive policies will only stifle innovation that should be encouraged.

[updated 2009-04-20 11:39]

If a customer is sold a certain bandwidth speed, the provider should deliver that service. What Bell does is throttling on top of throttling. When the customer is provided 5 MB/s access, they have throttled from the total system speed which could be as high as 100000 MB/s in the locality. So the point is, when the customer has been provided a throttled portion of the total internet by Bell, why is it neccesary to throttle again? How is a business allowed to accept payment for a service they cannot fully provide?

[updated 2009-04-20 12:11]

We need to ascertain whether traffic management is necessary or not. It is my understanding that some key ISP providers have claimed that data traffic information is proprietary and thus confidential. Without empirical evidence it is difficult for the Canadian public to engage in any meaningful dialogue vis-a-vis traffic shaping.

[updated 2009-04-20 13:27]

The internet has grown in importance to almost all Canadians, and will continue to do so, and as such is becoming the best place for information, news and access to Government programs. It will soon become indispensable.

To me the main issues are:

- I should get the service I pay for. If an ISP is going to throttle certain packet types, they better come clean up front, and not change my terms of service without warning, or worse, change my service secretly. How about a solid standard definition of ISP quality of service?

- In markets where there is no ISP competition, tighter restrictions should be placed, since there would be no competition to offer the consumer a better service than a monopoly ISP that blocks what ever traffic it desires, to the detriment of the consumer.

- an ISP in no way should be allowed to use traffic management to hurt the competition, for example, a new legally operated service could arrive that uses the far more efficient P2P technologies to send television shows out to paying customers. The ISP should not be allowed to block this new business model under the guise of "stopping piracy".

- Some traffic management does make sense - real time data over non real time is an obvious traffic management concept that can be encouraged by open industry standards,
as long as (again) the traffic management is not used to stifle competitor's data services.
For example, those who now chose internet based telephone service would want that live phone call to have higher priority than their own email traffic. A different customer may want their family photo backups to the web to have higher priority. The best person to chose the priority is the consumer, starting with a basic publicly known, open and documented set of reasonable defaults that interested consumers could adjust to their own needs.

- In no way should an ISP be allowed to edit and/or insert their own content into the data stream of a consumer without prior written permission. For example, do not allow an ISP to insert their own ad content into someone elses' web page, and subvert the business model of the competitors web site.

[updated 2009-04-20 16:03]

I pay my Internet and i also pay for my games that i purchase online thru Amazon for the most part, some of these games use peer to peer connection methods (Demigod, to name one) that are also commonly associated with piraty program such as eMule or Bittorent to name a few.
When i try to connect to a multiplayer online game my ISP cut off my connection thinking that i am trying to download illegal contents, presumably.

It is NOT the role of the ISP to monitor or to take actions regarding such things, The sole role of a COMPAGNY that makes a profit for a given service, is to DELIVER whatever service it is PAID to deliver.

I am not even talking about how terrible the idea of favorising some website over others is... this can only mean that the internet will stop being neutral and that it will basically turn into a big advertising tool for mega corporations.

Regards,
Remy B

[updated 2009-04-20 17:34]

As is well known the internet began as an academic resource which then expanded to the public as individuals saw it's potential. The free access to information and expansion of ideas and freedom of speech was the ideal of all and we want to keep it that way.

As with all such endeavours, the private sector found a way to make a profit out of it with no interest in the ultimate public good.

We the public do not want the internet to be "managed" against our interests. That ISP's want to prioritize content to give preference to their commercial concerns is not acceptable.

I find it interesting that the report is solely those entities making the profit from it. I hope this input that the public is now giving the CRTC will be listened to and not just be window dressing. The majority using the internet is the public so we are the ones that should be listened to.

Those wanting to make a profit from this resource should be willing to pay the ISP's more than the public to upgrade the service to it's full potential. Since they are "commercial" then they "pay" for the service over an above the public whose interest is for a true expression of ideas and communication among human activity for the benefit of all.

[updated 2009-04-20 18:10]

The majority of ISP's CEO's are politically conservative (not surprisingly they want to conserve their position of prosperity and influence). Unfortunately there has arisen, within the corporate media, a pattern of abuse of power by corporations to use this influence to promote conservative politics using the corporate media infrastructure available to them. This behavior is at least antidemocratic, and is construed by some as being illegal. There are proven instances of ISP's blocking websites right to free speech. They should fined an amount that will stop this behavior. Because corporations can not be trusted to serve the interests of Canadian Democracy they must be regulated.

[updated 2009-04-20 18:11]

The issue to me is that the telecom company gets to choose what is regulated. Their content is never regulated. If there is a business case to limit bandwidth, it should be a limit on bandwidth for all applications or not at all.

[updated 2009-04-20 21:29]

ISP traffic management techniques are an abuse of the semi-monopolies enjoyed by cable companies and Bell Canada. To say they can't keep up with bandwidth demand means either they aren't doing their job keeping up with technology, or they are trying to withhold bandwidth for their own commercial purposes/gain.

If ISPs need to limit traffic then they should do it in an up front manner that fairly treats users as customers - not as problem users that need to be arbitrarily and secretly suppressed. They have no right to decide what traffic is more or less deserving of the full speed customers pay for.

If they need or want to, ISPs can sell and price their service according to bandwidth and/or total throughput. Then consumers can select the service they want from the ISP with the best combination of price and speed/throughput.

Doing traffic management instead of improving the infrastructure is standing in the way of progress. ISPs that don't install enough bandwidth, or overprice it will, and should be left behind the competition.

As for ISPs using Bell wires to go the last mile to their customers - it should be up to Bell to prove the need for any bandwidth restrictions on a local and temporary basis.

If Bell proves there is a bandwidth problem, then the ISP and the customer need to be informed of and compensated for any reductions. Plus It should be incumbent on Bell to solve bandwidth bottlenecks, and then contractually guarantee a speed.

When Bell sends me advertisements boasting about it's new fiber optic service in my area, I fail to understand why it is throttling my multi-media traffic at 180kb/s.

If Bell has trouble with the pressure streaming video is putting on it's ability to supply dependable bandwidth, then they should stop CTV (Bell Globalmedia) from streaming it's programs until the problem with Bell bandwidth is fixed.

And - didn't companies like 360 Networks go under five years ago due to a glut of bandwidth? What happened to the glut?

[updated 2009-04-20 23:36]

As someone who uses the internet on a regular basis internet I think traffic management is unfair. Internet service providers should not be engaged in a deceptive practice that slows down the speed of internet services causing unneeded and unnecessary inconveniences.

Controlling what content people can see online by throttling their internet connections and slowing bandwidth should not occur. Net neutrality is very important and the concept of an open internet should not be stifled by big corporations and ISPs trying to impede technological advancement and further their own self-agendas. It's unfair, unjust and the CRTC should rule against this unethical behavior. This sort of thing should be restricted from taking place.

Consumers who pay for high speed internet access should be receiving a fast and fully functional internet service that they were promised, otherwise it's misleading advertising on the part of the ISPs.

[updated 2009-04-21 04:53]

If I contract for a certain speed of internet connection, then that is what I should receive in normal conditions. If the infrasructure supplier (Bell/Rogers, et al) have a 'backbone' throughput issue, then the only reasonable measure should be 'global' throttling in a protocol agnostic fashion. If they can afford to pay executives millions in salary and bonuses, then they should, if these executives are doing their jobs, be investing heavily in upgrading their plants and backbones to handle the explosion of data that is visible on the horizon to even the casual observer.
At the other end, Canada should be planning ahead and extending 'fibre-to-the-home' as a useful, future-proofing endevour. Think of the jobs that a nation-wide effort such as that could create in the current economic condition.

Bell sends me advertisements boasting about it's new fiber optic service in my area. I fail to understand then why it has to throttle my multi-media and other traffic.

If Bell has trouble with the pressure streaming video is putting on it's ability to supply dependable bandwidth, then they could start by stopping CTV (Bell Globalmedia) from streaming it's programs until the problem with Bell bandwidth is fixed. Interesting that I first had to do an overnight torrent download of a CBC video to get a video that should have been, at worst, a 20 minute download at advertised speeds, while the CTV stuf still appears to work. Just a coincidence I suppose....

[updated 2009-04-21 15:03]

The future of wireless needs to advance along with the rest of the world and Canada is lagging more and more every year. The days of minutes, voice plans and data "options" will come to an end once 4G gets a foothold. Where will Canada be once this happens? The Canadian Wireless establishment is trying to slow that progress and halt innovation and competition.

It’s a pretty simple concept that the wireless industry is trying to protect its own interests and continue with their present business model. If they had their way everything would stay the same and the Telco's would continue to make deals with other companies in order to use their network to advertise or sell its product with exclusive deals. The side effect of this is that innovation and competition gets stalled and the internet is now managed and manipulated as the carriers see fit to fulfill the advertising goals of its partners. The thing is the internet is not owned by a Company, it is owned by the public and should remain that way. Companies need to advance their network in a way that sustains and adapts to a neutral internet that is free of bias information and advertisment if they wish to base their network on the internet. I realize that it’s a fine balance of supply and demand for ISP's to offer data on a network, but the world is global and Canada needs to compete with similar costs and tech. So if there is one common thing that all of us should share, then this would be to allow an internet that is free from restrictions alongside more competition. If a company wants to offer caps and higher costs to balance capacity then this is fine, but governments must regulate in order for competition and inovation to flourish in Canada so Canadaian companies are kept in check and Canadians productivity keeps pace with the world. I don’t mean allow foreign ownership but to allow foreign companies to have an attractive reason to invest in Canada, similar to Vodapone and Verizon or AT&T and Rogers deal way back when. Also, to allow new companies to grow and not be swallowed up by the established ones.

With an unrestricted wireless internet alongside real competition, this will open itself to Mobile VOIP, video chat, IPTV, internet radio, real time road conditions and other forms of communications from a multitude of providers along with an unlimited amount of ip based devices which combine to increases innovation and productivity throughout Canada and constant contact with the world including more and more remote areas.

So don’t get caught up in the idea that Rogers, Telus, Bell want you to believe their network will “fall apart” and be less "secure" if data is made more available or if any device would be allowed to connect to its network to VOIP and stream ect... This would not be true if the wireless industry was identified as an ISP and regulated more closely by the CRTC in order to increase and sustain competition which in turn forces wireless to innovate and overcome todays capacity and security issues. By doing so this increases productivity and additional competition for Canadians forcing more inovation, leading to more jobs and so on..

[updated 2009-04-21 15:49]

Traffic management? What happenned to unfettered, unlimited open access? Free country? Rural Canadians treated fairly? How far off are we from the Chinese Government? Why is it that we need to come to the CRTC? Why is the CRTC not comming to us?

SURELY IF THE CRTC WANTED TO HEAR FROM REAL CANADIANS IT WOULD SERF THE NET!!!!

Here's a small sample:

Feedback Forum

How many votes?

Shouldn't we invest in internet infrastructure?

The internet is not only the way of the future; it is also an integral part of the life of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. To remain competitive in this field we must harness the wave of Research and Innovation that the Conservative government has been, not only neglecting, but completely disregarding. We must improve our Internet infrastructure (example: fibre to the home) and we must put in place measure such as net neutrality and put a stop to bandwidth throttling to ensure competitiveness and fair access to that infrastructure to all companies and ensure that the consumer gets the level of service advertised.
41 comments | by stboisvert

Mike Newman

Rogers and Bell have demonstrated that they do not have Canadians' best interests at heart and are not willing to compete properly.
The Canadian government should be creating all infrastructure (laying fibre, building cell towers) and then wholesaling access to independent companies to create a competitive market.
Broadband is good for citizens, good for democracy, good for businesses, good for the media, good for education, good for health care... Canada cannot afford to ignore this issue any longer, and it is too important to be entrusted to our existing telecom providers.

about 7 hours ago
2.

mhickeym

The companies with physical plant in the ground or on poles such as Bell, Rogers, Telus and others must be treated as the Common Carriers they used to be. The CRTC has slippery sloped its way to creating companies that are not Common Carriers in any way shpe or form. They are now monopoly gate keepers who are monetizing everything they carry on their facilities. It is of the utmost importance that these money grabbers have their license to print money rescinded. They must be broken up into 1) Common Carriers. 2) ISP Sympatico, Rogers ... 3) TV. 4) Newspapers, magazines. 5) Cellphone. 6) Sat TV. The two main political parties are major beneficiaries of the present arrangement in that the Telecom companies are beholden to them to ensure the continuance of the cash cow arrangements now in place. Favours are expected and flow both ways, one hand washes the other. Is the political will there ?

6 days ago
3.
3 Default-avatar

Basel

Yes, we need to invest in our Internet infrastructure, just like Australia!

<b>Australia announces $30-billion broadband network</b>

"The fibre-to-the-home scheme would be the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history, Mr. Rudd said, and would support 37,000 jobs as the country teeters on the edge of an expected recession that is likely to push the jobless rate above 7 per cent next year.

The network would connect 90 per cent of homes to a network with speeds of up to 100 megabits per second."

<a href="http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090406.wbroadband0406/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business&quot;&gt;click here to see the Globe and Mail article</a>

Canada will be left behind if we don't get moving soon!

10 days ago
4.
3 Default-avatar

drhaller

If our Canadian Government was brave they would break up the oligarchy of telecom companies into "access" and "services" like in France. If this were done we'd likely see the same level of innovation in providing "advanced communications services" that French consumers enjoy today.

The "access" network to Canadian homes was originally built by monopolies that still have absolutely no incentive nor intention of innovation except wringing the last hard earned $ out of their customer base.

In Canada the "triple play" of communications services of phone, Internet and Digital TV costs way too much. The only innovation Canadians have seen in the last five years from companies like Bell Canada are bandwidth caps, privacy violations, throttled access, increased prices, and off-shore customer service.

Canada will soon become to be an Internet backwater.

If you want to see innovation look at Freebox in France: http://www.free.fr/adsl/ their "triple play" is 29.99€/month. This company and many others in France did not exist 7 years ago. This is innovation that was started by Government action.

Monthly our family pays over $100 for digital TV, $40 for a phone and $60 for Internet access. My communications "triple play" costs over $200/month. Despite this, the major corporations like Bell Canada continue to send Canadian jobs overseas!

For further details on what happened in France, please read :
https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,495369,00.html

10 days ago
5.
Default-avatar

ibdevil

One of the biggest things to look at is the contracting that companies have there should not be any that way they can not tell the people what they have and live with it..also suppling the right service that they offer would be another asset..too many monopoly big time business like Bell/rogers tell the general public that they can offer one thing and just doing what they please..make them accountable for what is offered ...just like we pay our bills for a service..paying for services not render is kind like ordering a pizza and getting just the box!!!!

12 days ago
6.
3 Default-avatar

Mathew

Canada needs to take a leap into the now. DSL and Docsis2.0 and 3.0 are a thing of the past all ready. Technology develops at lightning fast speeds which in turn also means the same technology becomes obsolete lightning fast as well. Canada needs to keep up with other countries around the world on a technological level so we as Canadians have an open playing field when it comes to our education and our jobs.
With more and more people working from home over the internet, taking in home college classes at night to better themselves for a new career, to children doing research on a project for school. We're all levitating towards a growing dependency on the internet and what it has to offer. If we Canadians are limited to what we can do on the Internet be it because of Throttling of certain protocols during certain hours or because of an absurdly low bandwidth limit forced upon us each month. Our production and innovation will be greatly hindered by the limitations forced upon us by big corporations that as it stands now in Canada RULE the internet in Canada.
Canada needs to implement a FTTH Fiber to the home network. We need to take advantage of the great bandwidth capacity it offers and the low cost of the actual fiber itself. Canadians need to be able to compete on a level playing field when it comes to technology, Technology spawns innovation and innovation spawns all sorts of great and wonderful things. Why would Canada want it's citizens not to be able to compete in the world market when it comes to Technology and internet? If things continue they way they are in this country, We as Canadians will be so far behind in the times that we will be a joke to other countries with this technology and all we'll be able to do is wave good-bye as they'll be so far ahead we'll no longer even look like a spot on the map of technology.

12 days ago
7.
3 Default-avatar

andyb

We need a neutral player that is able to manage a free and open network for all companies and we need the crtc/goverment to open up the lastmile for open competition so that the people of this country actually get a real choice.The neutral player will be able to do the infastructure upgrades from the access fee's.

12 days ago
8.
1 Default-avatar

xef

Rural communities need high speed internet service at a reasonable price - the government should provide subsidies or incentives where this is uneconomic for the private sector providers.

14 days ago
9.
1 Default-avatar

actinolite

I typically waffle between Liberal, NDP, and Green, and I voted Green in the last election. I would vote for any not-Conservative party that would step up to the plate and set this country on the right path with respect to telecom infrastructure, Net Neutrality, and copyright reform. We can't hope to compete in the knowledge economy without this!

15 days ago
10.
3 Default-avatar

ERTW

While Internet access used to be a luxury item, in the current economy it has become more closely related to thinks like utilities and roads. Unfortunately, it is not economically (or logistically) viable for a multitude of suppliers to provide the last mile links, this has left us with a duopoly that has little incentive to improve. Building a public last mile network would remedy this.

15 days ago
11.
1 Default-avatar

Robert Powers

We need to invest in internet infrastructure or Canada will be left in the dust. However, monopolistic companies need to be forced to make their prices more reasonable and need to stop trying to push usage based billing. It's not 1999 anymore.

16 days ago
12.
2 Default-avatar

Lester

Canada needs to invest in PUBLIC telecommunications infrastructure as it will be essential to Canada's recovering economy and emerging/existing internet based services. Internet services that heavily depend on unlimited bandwidth and speed, services whose distribution aren't only restricted to the major communications carriers who claim totalitarian control over the physical infrastructure.

16 days ago
13.
2 Default-avatar

Lester

ISPs such as Bell don't want to invest into infrastructure. They rather just create more internet usage restrictions (bandwidth allowance & speeds) that are quite simply unsustainable today, not to mention the near future.

16 days ago
14.
3 Default-avatar

Marty

Its is essential we as a Country preserve the right of Net Neutrality. Where is the freedom in a free Country when the Internet is CONTROLLED by the Big 3, Bell, Rogers etc.. The 3rd Partys must not BE controlled. I have NEVER voted Liberal but I can guarantee this
would swing mine and my families votes to Liberal.

16 days ago
15.
Default-avatar

KEVIN

The Government must take a firm stand to not allow hugh corporations, such as Bell and Rogers, to dominant the Internet. The notion that the market would always be dominated by huge, consolidated monopolies is over. A stop to bandwidth throttling/traffic-shaping must become law. Net Neutrality is about equal acces to the Internet. The Internet is a free and open source to one and all.

16 days ago
16.
3 Default-avatar

Chris Torrance

we are falling through the cracks of internet technology. and small businesses will later on move to the US because its cheaper and a bit more somewhat fair game

16 days ago
17.
3 Default-avatar

zoda9999

Dear Liberals,

I encourage you to take action and ensure Net Neutrality and Fiber to the home. Earn my Vote!

16 days ago
18.
3 Default-avatar

jelawre

This is an incredibly important issue for Canada. If the Liberals are able to affect change, and enable Net Neutrality and Fiber to the home, they will have my vote.

16 days ago
19.
3 Default-avatar

mat.lafrance

This issue has also been posted on digg.com and reddit.com. Check it out:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Liberal_party_of_Canada_asking_for_opinion_on_Internet
http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/89qvm/tell_the_liberals_to_support_net_neutrality

17 days ago
20.
3 Default-avatar

Taylor Byrnes

We need to invest in internet infrastructure. Canada is rapidly falling behind compared to other developed countries. High speed internet has a proven track record of encouraging economic activity, both from existing businesses and from innovators who start tomorrow's businesses. Strong net neutrality provisions are important to ensure investment is not wasted lining the pockets of big telcos.

[updated 2009-04-21 18:11]

So called "traffic management" is a threat to our basic liberties as it enables content-based discrimination and censorship. Its first target is "illegal downloaders", but it can quickly degenerate into downright censorship, as the Telus incident (censorship of their union) proved.

Besides, most backbone providers (Bell, Rogers, Videotron) are also active as "content providers", either as "creators" of content (especially in the case of Videotron/Quebecor) or as resellers/distributors (e.g. Bell), so there's an obvious conflict of interest that *should* be taken into account even if from a simply commercial point of view.

Finally, we must also take into account that the way the internet developed was based on principles of openness and public standards. Deviating from those will obscure the network, which will make diagnostics and maintenance harder and more expensive. Closing down the network will also keep small businesses and individual researchers from being able to experiment with the network, which will obviously stifle innovation coming from the base.

The big providers have now an effective monopoly of what will become our primary means of communication. If the resulting network is not open and neutral, innovation, the economy and our very democracy will be at stake. This needs to be regulated.

[updated 2009-04-22 11:24]

All drama aside, I believe that controlling the way people access the web and what people see and do online will solve the problem for everyone involved in the end. As controls get tighter and prices go up, people will begin to drop off the internet. Due to practices like those US and European ISP's have engaged in, and due to the greed of gigantic corporations who earn billions and set record profits every year, the internet itself will slowly die out. It's not that hard to imagine life without the internet. It is hard however to see any point in paying through the nose for access to a controlled internet and controlled content. For me, I see as sort of like going to Disneyland, paying a fortune to get there and get in the gate, only to have security guards escort you around the park. There are no rewards, no prizes, no goodies and no fun. You can't even take pictures because you might violate some copyright. Your escorted to a couple of rides. You get to use the rides your shown for a short time and then you get kicked off. Once you've ridden the rides, your time and the park is over and there isn't anything else for you to do. If at anytime you dare go to a ride that you don't have permission to access, your thrown out of the park and never allowed to return.

Would it still be worth the money to go to Disneyland? Or would what was once the greatest amusement park in the world, die out and become nothing but a piece of history. If the past teaches us anything, it's that greed can destroy even the greatest of empires. Foolish men can ruin even the most magnificent of things and in the end, it's the coming generations who pay the greatest price.

[updated 2009-04-22 16:39]

Traffic management would be unnecessary, if the ISPs were constantly upgrading the network infrastructure, as they ought to be.

The "scarcity" of bandwidth is artificial, the very idea borders on fraud.

The CRTC could play a role here: require the ISPs to spend a certain percentage of revenues on network improvements, otherwise their network goes on the auction block.

A fast, open network is of vital, strategic importance.

If Canadians can't count on the private sector, under the "oversight" of the CRTC, we should push legislators to nationalise the network, and start investing tax dollars in it as a resource for all Canadians to benefit from.

It's that important. We can't let myopic corporate greed impede our nation's progress in this new century. The network is a national resource. In 1998, we had the best network in the OECD.

10 years on, and that lead is completely squandered, due to corporate greed, and the laissez faire management of the CRTC.

It's time for a change, let's kick the piggies away from the trough.

[updated 2009-04-22 23:07]

This is a difficult topic for several reasons; the ISP's such as Bell and Rogers make claims that their networks are strained by the high demand and usage so to deal with it they implenent technologies that throttle the end users connection. We have no proof that their claims are valid, so they should disclose the facts so that they can be judged for themselves. An end user pays for a connection but not a throttled connection, so they are not getting what they pay for, however they have little or no recourse. There is little or no copetition with ISP's, you can either get DSL (owned wholly by Bell) or cable (owned wholly by Rogers) and they have virtually the same practices in how they throttle their customers connections while charging high monthly fees. I do not believe that these companies should be allowed to continue without some kind of regulation. If a consumer pays for an advertised connection of 5MB then that is what should be delivered, and every effort should be put forth by the ISP to see that it is. If throttling must be used, then monthly rates should also be 'throttled' as well. I am against download limits or caps because I believe it infringes on the freedom of the internet and what it represents, not to mention that it is clearly a money grab for the ISP's.

[updated 2009-04-23 00:22]

Traffic management has been implemented in a biased and negative manor.

The current process:
- An ISP decides which type of traffic needs to be managed. What type of traffic should be affected? Is it justified, and if so, where is the proof?
- Encrypted traffic is a way to protect people's privacy, especially where sensitive information is passed (ie: credit card information). Some ISP's have lumped this encrypted traffic into the management system, effectively slowing it (security) down.

Traffic management in Canada has gone largely unquestioned by the people that it matters most to, often out of lack of education or knowledge. It is implemented in a non-transparent manor.

We are supposed to trust our ISP's, but how can we, when we know they are fooling around with our data.

Other technologies like deep-packet inspection (DPI), html code injection, and DNS servers (missing critical security patches) are also of major concern. These are all potential security issues.

Lastly, all of this comes with ever-increasing prices in the guise of "cost of doing business".

As a result of the ISP's rampage against users, our service has been eroded, and there is little value in what is now an essential service.

[updated 2009-04-24 01:05]

Throttling the internet is just making it easier for other countries like Japan to compete against us. Instead of handicapping ourselves and making excuses, invest in infrastructure and open the market to more competition rather than the cable 'dualopoly' of Rogers/Cogeco.
Maybe a parallel public internet provider could be started as well.

[updated 2009-04-25 04:14]

I.S.P. knows best about how to manage the flow of information that run on their bllion dollards infrastructure and i think the governement should stay out of their way.Lest we end up with an unmanaged and slow internet render useless by none efficient technologies like bittorent.If i'm unhappy with that i can always create my own I.S.P. if i think knows best. That's the beauty of free market.

[updated 2009-04-25 08:49]

This consultation starts with the assumption that traffic management is necessary, then asks us to debate How Much? When? and What Type?

Is traffic management necessary? Let's see the numbers.

[updated 2009-04-25 19:22]

I'm opposed to trottling (or traffic management or whatever gentler-sounding name the ISPs come up with). I pay for my internet connection and should be able to send whatever data I want down the line - just like I'm allowed to phone anyone and talk about anything on my phone line, or even use a fax machine on it. It's reasonable for an ISP to limit or charge based on amount of data used, but not on the content of that data - just like a phone company can charge me for long-distance usage (or locals call too).

My 2c - list me as another Canadian opposed to traffic throttling.

[updated 2009-04-27 11:11]

Mail, then phone service, then the internet, have become basic forms of communication that are essential. Like our speech, these basic forms of communication must remain impartial/neutral in intake and transmission of information. Otherwise, they impinge directly on our entitlement regardless of geography, income etc to communicate. And also our entitlement to privacy.

If congestion is a problem, it is reasonable to charge for extra time or volume of data transmission/receiving, just as in telephone and mail. But there is no justification for the routing or blocking of traffic . Net neutrality is as essential as our freedom of speech and mobility.

[updated 2009-04-28 03:26]

I am encouraged by the clear concise direction provided to the CRTC through this forum and I hope that for once, the outcome might result in financial penalties to ILECs who break the rules. I think monetary penalties are the only thing that can force a change in behavior.

Clearly the CRTC has been ineffectual thus far in protecting Canadian's interests in these matters. If the CRTC does not start working more effectively very soon there will be a revolution sooner rather than later. The revolution I'm talking about is FTTH provided by municipalities. The people of Canada have had enough and we are going to do something about it.

[updated 2009-04-29 03:36]

The use of traffic management techniques ( aka Throttling) is a technique i am very opposed to. this seemingly gives our ISP's complete control on what they think is right and wrong for us to see and do. now i look and our brothers and sisters to the south and see the freedom they have. watching live sports on the internet, getting huge amounts of bandwidth, able to have the freedom to do whatever they want, when they want it.

If Bell Canada was operating in San Francisco and word was spread that they were ( and are) throttling the costumers internet, well there would be riots in the streets! no one would put up with that kind of service!

now i look at Canada.

We are one of the most over priced and under delivered countries in the world when it comes to internet service, now this maybe a bit off topic, but for a US citizen to get a basic 12MBPS download and 1 MBPS upload speed they pay $20 per month, in canada if we want the same thing we have to pay $42 per month.

if you notice we can't have a hulu.com service in canada because of these traffic management techniques, also it seams that the greatest web 2.0 companies, like digg, revision3, google, facebook, twitter, come from the areas that have the greatest internet freedom. in short internet restrictions like "traffic management techniques" takes away from our innovation as a country.

Like i stated in the begining i am opposed to any form of "traffic management techniques" that involve any loss to the consumer.

If these practices continue, or get worse i will stand up in protest for it is my right and my duty to do so.

I can be contacted about this for more information at brian.brianb64@gmail.com

[updated 2009-04-29 03:51]

I believe ISP traffic management equals censorship and as such is inherently dangerous to freedom and democracy. This should be legislated against and penalized at the highest level.

[updated 2009-04-29 11:59]

ISPs control the physical infrastructure of Canada’s Internet. The Internet is rightly likened to other transportation and communications venues, from train tracks to phone lines. The principle of “Common Carriage” should apply to the Internet just as it does to phone lines and highways; (barring compelling legal evidence of crimes causing harm, e.g., child pornography), ISPs should not be allowed to meddle in the content of what is being transported/communicated. Common carriage is good for competition, privacy and democracy.

ISPs can certainly be allowed to sell various levels of service, as they do currently. However, within those advertised limits there should not be “management” in forms such as selectively slowing certain protocols or routinely implementing “deep packet inspection.” Similar to other communications devices, such as my phone line, what I communicate over the Internet should be between myself and the other parties with whom I am communicating.

Further, opening the door to selective “traffic management” rather than enforcing common carriage principles is anticompetitive, allowing ISPs who are also content providers to selectively privilege their own content (or content of companies who pay for priority). The Internet was created to be a democratic peer-to-peer communication platform, not merely another route, similar to television, on which large companies can push “entertainment” to consumers. Failing to extent common carriage principles to the Internet severely limits the potential of the Internet, and greatly curtails the ability of “the small guy” to communicate via this medium.

[updated 2009-04-30 00:30]

I am completely opposed to any "network management". I feel that deep packet inspection is a violation of privacy, and data, regardless of what type should not be "inspected" any further than header information.
Given that all other forms of mass communication have been tainted by large media conglomerates, the Internet is the one and only medium that allows citizens to communicate, share ideas, and debate with one another without having information "filtered". It is these same media companies, who own most of the cable/satellite (delivery systems), that also own or control the content (i.e. Bell, CTV, Bell Express Vu, etc) on mass media. Unfortunately now these same media companies are exerting their influence over the internet by disrupting the free flow of information.

[updated 2009-04-30 01:36]

This throttling thing is getting on my nerves and pissing me off to no end. I realize that they don't want me to download, and so I now use Conversion Wizard to make MP3's off of music videos on YouTube, but it still is annoying and dumb.

If I have to download an update for any program on my computer and Bell is throttling it because they are afraid of Bit Torrent, then that makes my use of it worthless. How does that help me or anybody else? More to the point, if the thing that I'm downloading with Bit Torrent is being legally offered, as is the case with the amateur production of Star Trek: New Voyages, why is it being slowed down?

The CRTC needs to tell Bell that this is a foolish thing that they are doing, and that it isn't working. All they are doing is punishing people who may be using Bit Torrent legally in order to get at people who aren't doing so. As well, the CRTC needs to lean onto Bell and make them stop this throttling of the 'Net being carried out as a defense of copyright-it is not, and the entertainment industry does not need it considering that they already have services like iTunes. Also, Bell shouldn't be using two tiered Internet service to squelch file-sharing, either.

[updated 2009-04-30 13:01]

"focus on particular subscribers"...?? i dont think so! such practices will not only marginalize consumers, but maybe even discourage their usage patterns or even unsubscribe to that particular service provider. like most people on leaving comments on here i agree with network neutrality and do believe that if we are essentially paying for internet service we should be able to access whatever we want. i have an issue with focusing on particular subscribers...i cant find any justifications as to why ISP's would do so...as if bandwidth doesnt limit consumers enough. get a grip. we should be able to access whatever we want if we are paying for the service. thats like going to the trendiest sushi bar and ordering morimoto's and they only have california rolls. unfair right?

[updated 2009-04-30 14:49]