Bell Update
I previously talked about Bell’s unilateral, competition-stifling move to throttle their wholesale DSL offerings. Bell has made a submission to the CRTC to refute CAIP’s application, but not before Primus (another independent ISP) put forward their letter supporting CAIP in their request for an immediate injunction. This was reported on Digital Copyright Canada (with a longer article on itWorldCanada) and by Michael Geist, with some insightful commentary.
Lawrence Lessig has also posted his address to the FCC regarding Network Neutrality, which provides timely (if a little US-centric) points as well.
[UPDATE]: p2pnet has a daily digest of Bell’s Throttling.
As Geist highlights, Primus rightfully calls into question the need – oft cited by Bell – to throttle bandwidth during peak times. There were no slowdowns before, so why suddenly severely limit allocated bandwidth?
Bell, as expected, makes some vacuous arguments. Read their whole dissapointing submission if you care to learn more, but the one I took offense to was where Bell basically says p2p is running a server, which is generally prohibited by ISPs in any case.
Come again? Yes, Bell Sympatico prohibits servers (on their residential services). Guess what? I didn’t sign up because of this. Thankfully, they had competitors who allow me to run my FTP, remote desktop, web, http proxy, etc. servers on my home computer, for my own personal use. It gets me upset to the point of literally foaming at the mouth that Bell dares make these unilateral changes and as a consumer I have no better alternatives – not because the technology isn’t possible, but because Bell and Rogers are trying to undermine the very nature of the Internet to protect their old business models.
Anyway, that’s all I’ll say about that today. Good night, and good luck!
Possibly related posts:
It’s interesting (not really) that Bell would use the “anti-server” clause in the TOS to defend its anti-file sharing crusade… and to just decide to use it NOW, when BT has been around for so long. (
Why weren’t they systematically clamping down on the practice all along, if it was sooo against the Terms??
Personally, I don’t think seeding a torrent can actually qualify as “server activity”. If that was the case, then a simple work-related e-mail with an attachment, regularly sent to a the same distribution list, would end up with the same label.
That aside, the concept of file sharing was already PROMOTED by Bell in much of their advertising. Adopting the present stance, Bell has, effectively, contradicted itself.
The “bandwidth hogs” statement is nothing but propaganda.
And Bell’s real motivations behind all of this have been blantantly obvious. Just follow the timeline…
1) The MPAA/RIAA (“MAFIAA”) begin their anti-piracy campaign.
2) The MAFIAA cries “fowl” on P2P technology, preaching (from their Ivory Tower view of the world) all file sharers are criminals.
3) The MAFIAA launches a self-defeating war on its customers, sending legal threats to kids, and trying to sue everyone.
4) The MAFIAA spends a small fortune on lawyers, takes in all that scare money (from those who didn’t challenge the initial letter), and gives NONE of the payoff to the ARTISTS (the ones the MAFIAA said they were doing all this for).
5) The MAFIAA then approaches a number of major ISPs about some supposed MPAA-perceived “ethic, moral and legal duty” of the providers to, basically, become policemen of the MAFIAA’a cause.
6) Shortly after, Bell (one the providers approached by the MAFIAA) e-mailed Sympatico customers, calling attention to some changes to the Terms of Service. The new TOS stated Bell was “reserving the right to cooperate with law enforcement”. Bell openly announced that they were willing to turn over ALL of a user’s personal info and usage logs (showing everything a user has done during a certain time period) to not only the local police and the RCMP, but also to the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AUTHORTIES. (Who would that be, d’ya s’pose?!)
7) Bell begins playing with the concept of online media services, including IPTV, and, interestingly enough, music/movie downloading sites sanctioned by the MAFIAA, and getting “incentives” from the MAFIAA. (Think “bandwidth”.)
8) Comcast (another provider approached by the MAFIAA) tries throttling BitTorrent/P2P, eventually getting themselves in the hot water they’re in.
9) Bell starts throttling Sympatico’s BT activity.
10) Bell files a motion with the CRTC to remove current tariffs, in order to change the billing structure, allowing them to charge their customers according to a “consumption” formula, and kill off any “unlimited” accounts.
11) Bell loses customers due to the throttling. Most of these customers migrated to CAIP providers.
12) Bell lets it out they plan on having a “new billing system” in place by mid-summer, based on usage. Rogers does the same!
13) Bell starts throttling its GAS resellers.
14) The resellers begin to rebel, and customer complaints come in across the board for everyone. Bell finally admits to throttling, and counters with the “bandwidth hogs” story we’ve come to know and love so much.
15) CAIP files its CRTC motion against Bell.
…Yada, yada, yada.
In short, Bell wants to not only prevent “net neutrality” from becoming law, they also want to BE THE LAW when it comes to Canada’s internet.
And Bell doesn’t care if it already AGAINST THE LAW to “open and inspect” the data packages passing through its pipes. And, it wasn’t enough that providers are protected by law from being responsible for any of that data, providing they DON’T OPEN THEM.
Bell also wants to control any competition that would cut into their profits they could be making from their own proposed online services.
So, here we have a COMPANY… Not a government body… Just a telecommunications PROVIDER… Who is currently getting away with violating our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, Fair Practice Laws, and current CRTC Regulations, all at the same time.
Why Jim Prentice and the CRTC didn’t jump all over this one in the first place is beyond me. But, then again, it seems to be the current trend in Canadian power circles to always have a different “agenda” than what the public would expect from certain positions.
1Specifically about the “consumption” model Bell and Rogers are movign to – I have absolutely nothing against it. I have said repeatedly that I would be more than happy to pay fair rates for the bandwidth I am using; I recognize that it’s not free, and that I probably use more than the average netizen. Heck, be like the phone companies and implement various different pricing schemes like more expensive bandwidth at peak hours. I really don’t care, so long as there is competition in the market and I can chose something that fits with my needs.
Bell and Rogers are starting down that path. Good for them.
But they persist in trying to tell me WHAT I can do with the bandwidth I am paying for. As Lessig highlights in his talk, just as the hydro company doesn’t care if I plug in a Sony or Panasonic TV, the ISP shouldn’t care if I’m using HTTP or BitTorrent. Just charge me for the electrons I use, dude, and both of us will be happy.
2Well, you may not think you have a problem with the concept of “metered” billing, but I’m sure if it becomes a reality, you will probably change your mind fairly quickly.
Just look at how we’ve already been scammed with the advertised connection speeds. We’ve been paying a “flat rate” for that, but have only been able to tap into a fraction of it.
Then, there’s the other pitch about the connection that was “never shared”. Obviously, that’s a complete farce as well. (Why else would it be necessary to “manage” the traffic?)
Once you give these people the permission to bill you by usage, you are handing them yet another tool to screw you around with. They’re only trying to cash in on all the bandwidth-intensive activity that a modern internet encourages now.
I also have another point of concern for consumption billing…
The provider would then have an excuse to keep convenient records of everyone’s downloading habits. That means, if ever there was any heavy investigations going on (as the MPAA has been hammering for), all the logs for the “heavy downloaders” will be brought out first.
Whether or not a user is doing any illegal downloading won’t matter at that point. The fact is, you will be handed over to the MAFIAA “for questioning”, and YOU will be the last one to find out.
What happens after that is not important.
3A little imagination is all that’s needed to see why this scenario is wrong on more than one front.