×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

118 comments

Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426288)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426728)

I prefer the Golden Shower Girls (volume XXVII).

A complete bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426294)

Please stop Rogers, please? I beg of you, please don't do that.

No, fuck off. I wont.

Ok, I back off now...

Fuck the CRTC. When they'll fucking do their jobs and make them responsible for billions in fucking damage to the Canadian economy?

Re:A complete bullshit (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426318)

Agreed. And you should have added a 'fuck rogers' too. To give you an idea, if anyone in the 'States had Rogers for a day, they would beg to go back to even the worst American ISP/cable company. I'd call Rogers a bunch of cunts, but cunts are useful.

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426348)

Not to nitpick, but have you lived in both places? I, for one, only torrent and game at home, so I can only account for the places I've lived and the ISP's I've tried.

If so, what's the difference?

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426474)

With more competition, providers in the US are better at pretending to do good things for you.

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428992)

With more competition, providers in the US are better at pretending to do good things for you.

I live in a typical small city just outside one of the largest cities. I don't really see a lot of this "competition" of which you speak. I have 2 real options, the local cable company or the local phone company, both of whom overcharge if you don't buy a bundle with a service I don't want; both of whom have horrible bureaucracies that result in some of the worst customer service of any industry. Neither the cable company nor the phone company pretended to do good things for me when I called for explanation of their obfuscated billing statements nor when their systems were malfunctioning or down. Their attitudes were both: "Well why don't you sit on hold for an hour and then we'll connect you to some random guy in India who can't help you and doesn't even comprehend your language very well. He won't do anything, but really we don't give a shit anyway because you don't have any better choices."

Re:A complete bullshit (4, Informative)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426550)

I lived in the U.S. for a little more than six years (got back to Canada 3 years ago).

To compare apples to apples plans, Rogers has a plan with 150 GB cap with a bandwidth of "up to" 32Mbps down (and how many sites will let you capitalize on that?) and "up to" 1 Mbps up, and costs $70 per month before taxes (13% sales tax in Ontario), etc. ($1 CDN is about $1.01 U.S. as of today). The evil empire AT&T has a plan with a 150 Gigabyte cap with a 12 Mbps (good enough for me anyway) down and 800 kbps up for 30 dollars a month with no contract. (I just looked up the prices for the place I used to live in Saint Louis. I chose these two plans because when looking up the ATT prices, this was the fastest package available in that area.)

ATT charges 10 dollars for every 50 GB overages in cap (20 cents per Gigabyte). On the plan in question, Rogers charges $1.25 per Gigabyte overage (or $62.50 for every 50 GB over the cap).

Rogers does have a 250 Gigabyte plan if it is available in your area that costs $100 per month and has "up to" 50 Mbps down (again, I don't know any web site that I go to that makes that worth anything). The overage "only" costs 50 cents per GB (or $25 dollars per 50 GB).

Up to a few months ago, the highest cap plan I saw for Rogers was around 80 GB, and I suspect these newer higher caps are the result of a huge amount of consumer complaints when they grossly reduced caps when Netflix was introduced to Canada either late last year or early this year.

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426662)

FWIW, In the last ten years I also lived in Seattle for a while (a year and a bit). Before 2000, not included in the six years I mentioned in the above post, I also spent a little under a year in Rhode Island, and did some short term project work (couple months each) in California and Illinois. So yeah, I know a bit about the United states.

Re:A complete bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37428032)

And you can stay up there in Canaduh too. Yah hey!

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427432)

Why does it have to be that complicated?

I just have a 50/5 Mbit connection, no shaping, no cap, for approx $65 per month.

I've had months where I only downloaded an estimated 40-50GB, others (most?) where I probably exceed 500. No problem. I can't see the exact numbers as my provider doesn't post them, then again I don't have to.
In some ways I'm pretty sure it's cheaper for the provider as well, as they don't have to waste resources on counting individual accounts exactly, or a fairly large complaints department to handle people disagreeing with their usage.

It is not an "up to xx" connection, though other providers in the area use the "up to" label, even if they are now told they can't.
Even if not all sites I visit delivers 50mbit, a lot actually does.

Re:A complete bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426744)

Not to nitpick, but have you lived in both places? I, for one, only torrent and game at home, so I can only account for the places I've lived and the ISP's I've tried.

If so, what's the difference?

He's informed and you're not.

Thanks for playing the Telecom Shill Ggame.

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428304)

"Thanks for playing the Telecom Shill Ggame"

What??? You think I work for a telecom co?

Well, I'll add that to the list - I work at M$, I suck RMS daily, and I look like a man (that was the worst one!)

Thanks AC, I love you too!

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426368)

FYI, this isn't a troll... it is a widely [canadaka.net] held [muchmormagazine.com] sentiment [fairhurst.ca] in Canada [leaguecraft.com].

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426420)

Actually, it is a troll.

This troll may represent widespread sentiment about the CRTC. To be fair to those trolls, the CRTC seems to be both ineffective and under disproportionate industry control. Yet I have also found that these trolls have an overly simplistic view of the CRTC and demand that it is disbanded because of that.

The reality is that we need the CRTC in Canada. We need a reformed CRTC to be certain, but insisting that disbanding the CRTC will end the abusive domination of communications companies is beyond irrational.

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426446)

We need CRTC for sure. We DO NOT need this CRTC. It needs to be disbanded and reformed again. what we have now is a fucking joke. one thing should be: No former industry executives should ever be allowed to serve. this is reason #1 why this CRTC is a fucking joke.

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426628)

And CRTC members should not be allowed in any senior role (or any role) in a major telecom company after as well.

Re:A complete bullshit (2)

sapgau (413511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426460)

What a pathetic company... Sadly I agree with the troll.... Rogers sucks!

Re:A complete bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426524)

AND blows!

Re:A complete bullshit (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427420)

The reality is the parent isn't a troll. The person who modded them is. Because they have no fucking clue, what they they're modding about. Rogers, much like the CRTC needs to die in a fire. Preferably screaming, in flames, while bathing in gasoline.

My ISP has this problem too. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426350)

Many ISPs today are implementing packet shaping in an extremely simplistic way. They simply rate limit everything and then whitelist the most common game servers, such as WoW. The problem comes when Blizzard commission new servers and the addresses change. Then for a few days-weeks, everyone gets extreme lag. If you are not playing an extremely popular game, it may take you months to get your ISP to whitelist the servers. If you are playing a game where anyone can host a server you are totally screwed.

Re:My ISP has this problem too. (3, Insightful)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426482)

and it is for that reason that I am pro net-neutrality.

Re:My ISP has this problem too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37428372)

Many ISPs today are implementing packet shaping in an extremely simplistic way. They simply rate limit everything and then whitelist the most common game servers, such as WoW.

and it is for that reason that I am pro net-neutrality.

Honestly, if all ISPs did was throttle bandwidth in aggregate I wouldn't mind it as much, as long as they didn't cherry pick certain protocols.

Over subscribing is a fact of life for economic reasons, and if a customer is using a lot of bandwidth during 'peak' hours, then using something like Random Early Detection to simply drop packets based on probability is something I'm generally okay with. If a customer wants to use their connection for Netflix, BT, games, Youtube, etc., then they'll be getting dropped packets on all of those things, and they'll have to choose on which activity to cut back on so the rest of the street/building gets a share of the uplink.

The ISP choosing that activity X or Y is more important than A or B is not something that I want them doing, as I've found they generally get it wrong.

Re:My ISP has this problem too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37430792)

So was Canada

Re:My ISP has this problem too. (1)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426954)

Many ISPs today are implementing packet shaping in an extremely simplistic way. They simply rate limit everything and then whitelist the most common game servers, such as WoW. The problem comes when Blizzard commission new servers and the addresses change. Then for a few days-weeks, everyone gets extreme lag. If you are not playing an extremely popular game, it may take you months to get your ISP to whitelist the servers. If you are playing a game where anyone can host a server you are totally screwed.

ISPs don't "simple rate limit everything". Most of the time, it's servers responding to packet loss that limit the data rate.

But lets suppose they were rate-limiting everything including WoW packets. Do you have any idea just how little bandwidth WoW requires? At idle, WoW consumes as little as 2Kbps and at most somewhere around 30Kbps. That's nothing. It would take serious rate-limiting to affect WoW traffic. So there's something else going on.

What's really happening is WoW traffic is sharing a fat link with lots of additional traffic, like web pages, video streams, or email deliveries. On busy links, this traffic, along with WoW traffic ends up in a buffer where it waits. The buffer might be megabytes in size. If a tiny WoW packet ends up at the end of that long buffer, then it gets to wait until all the traffic ahead of it clears. On links with large buffers, that might take more than a second. That kind of lag ruins game play. But hey, that's fair, right? Those other packets arrived first. They should get to go first. All packets should be treated equally.

Except that's stupid.

A latency sensitive tiny 30Kbps WoW stream should be prioritized so that its packets go to the head of the buffer. Those downloading web pages or streaming video will never notice that some of their packets were made to wait. In fact, most of the time, there will be no difference in download time. Packets will simply have been shifted around a bit. The total download time will remain nearly the same and any difference virtually undetectable.

Unfair? I don't know, but it works.

Re:My ISP has this problem too. (1)

kcbnac (854015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427152)

The problem is, how do you GUARANTEE that with this ISP-managed method, my Minecraft server doesn't get shafted and its packets dropped to the end of the queue/back of the buffer?

For all its drawbacks, Qwest (errr...CenturyLink) doesn't rape me with bandwidth quotas or blocked ports. I'm actually ALLOWED to host stuff...the speeds may not be as great as Comcast - but I can actually *USE* the connection... (I'm presently waiting for them to get to my side of Elk River, MN - so I can get the 5Mbit upload, over the 896Kb/sec we have now - from everything I've heard - *should* be a year - but then again, this is two name changes since we were told rural Anoka would get DSL in 6 months back in 1998...by USWest...2005 rolled around before Qwest got around to it - and is still BARELY getting 1.5Mbit/384Kbps)

Re:My ISP has this problem too. (1)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427302)

The problem is, how do you GUARANTEE that with this ISP-managed method, my Minecraft server doesn't get shafted and its packets dropped to the end of the queue/back of the buffer?

Whether you like it or not, the ISP is managing your packets, and when packet queuing happens something has to suffer (but a good ISP will specifically target latency-insensitive packets for this, such as known torrents, large HTTP transfers, FTP, etc). If you want GUARANTEED bandwidth to reduce bandwidth and packet loss, you need to be prepared to pay for it. Barring that, If you simply believe that your minecraft traffic is being dropped more than other traffic, I would suggest measuring the packet loss and raising a stink (whether formally via suit or via a visit to the local office is up to you... YMMV depending on the ISP). There's actually a decent chance that the excessive packet loss/delay isn't intentional, but if nobody complains they won't ever see the "bug".

Re:My ISP has this problem too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37427348)

Let me demonstrate the craptastic internet in Canada.

I can download a 100MB file from a CDN in the US from Shaw in Vancouver at 50Mbps on their 50Mbps plan
I can download a 100MB file from the same CDN in the US from iWeb in Montreal at 96Mbps on their 100Mbps connection
However I can not download the exact same 100MB file from iWeb Montreal to Shaw Vancouver at any more than 13Mbps. Likewise in the other direction. For some reason I can download this 100MB file at 50Mbps from South Korea just fine at Shaw. Likewise I can download the same 100MB file at 50mbps from California.

For some reason the internet out east in Central Canada (Toronto and Montreal area) is just incredibly pathetic.

The irony here is that the only way to actually use the advertised bandwidth is to get the file as a torrent since it sends it in pieces from presumably several people nearby.

Re:My ISP has this problem too. (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427838)

You're forgetting that it's Rogers. I have personally seen torrent traffic suddenly drop to 2kbit/s when they start traffic shaping my connection. 2am, not a very busy time of day, I'm saturating my cable connection, and then poof, within the space of 3 seconds, my connection has dropped from multiple megabits to 2kbit/s, and stay there, consistently, for multiple hours. And I have seen the same behaviour when downloading large files such as ISO images.

That's not network congestion that's causing it, that's traffic shaping. And if they're applying those rules to game servers, those game servers become unusable until they're whitelisted.

I don't even play WoW any more, nor any other online game. But there are multiple reasons why I won't do business with Rogers, and this is one of them. If I'm paying them for a 20mbit connection, that 20mbit should be mine to use as I see fit. I understand that congestion and QoS rules may cause certain uses to slow down a little during peak hours. It's the unfortunate reality of how the technology works. But that kind of traffic shaping is unacceptable. And that's something my current ISP understands, as they are quite happy to let me saturate my connection when they have the bandwidth to spare.

Rogers = Canadian Monoply in true form (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426440)

Can't think of Rogers without my blood boiling, what a bunch of cheap salesmen always thinking how to nickle dime you to death, restricting your service, etc.

F@ck them...

The real question (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426452)

How the HELL did they ever get thru to someone competent at Rogers? I mean, seriously. Or, maybe they haven't.

Re:The real question (1)

craigc05 (2377254) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426962)

Oh, that's the competent service department!

Just key in the following sequence with your phone:

635373563737463792

Don't listen to the automated call system, it will just confuse you.

Wait 30 minutes to speak to some underpaid kid that simply does not give a shit, argue with him for precisely 29:59 minutes, repeat for half a day, and eventually decide that competence is a matter of perspective and so the next person must be competent enough to speak to if you go back to the nice voice that you started your day with.

When this is clearly wrong and 3 kids have been fired from their minimum wage jobs for following procedure with you, just deal with it, accept the next slightly-better-than-shit thing that comes your way and go about your day glad that it's over with and the last person that you spoke to was competent enough to get you off the phone.

Re:The real question (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428140)

When I made a CRTC complaint about them I got a letter from the office of the CEO letting me know the issue was fixed (and, shockingly, it was actually fixed) within a week. Turns out they actually are scared of the CRTC.

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37431588)

This is what happens when regulators have teeth, unlike anything you see in the US (or UK for that matter)

They throttle everything (5, Informative)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426468)

The problem with Rogers is they throttle everything that looks like P2P. My limited understanding is that they look at the number of simultaneous connections to one host and if you go above their threshold, BOOM connection reset! For things like Xbox Live this means you can't play any team games, like Call of Duty, because your buddies will keep getting disconnected or time out.

For those who can, switching to TekSavvy cable solved all those problems for me. Now I can host game servers, run torrents at line speed (and beyond, thanks to SpeedBoost), and generally enjoy broadband as it was intended. Their cable service is new and limited to a few cities as they have to install their own hardware, unlike DSL which piggybacks off of Bell, but man is it ever worth it just to be rid of Rogers and my huge Rogers bills...

Re:They throttle everything (2)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426966)

"The problem with Rogers is they throttle everything that looks like P2P. My limited understanding is that they look at the number of simultaneous connections to one host and if you go above their threshold, BOOM connection reset!"

That sounds more like a NATting problem. I've dealt with ISPs that just didn't know how to set the damned things up properly.

You know the old saying: don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.

Re:They throttle everything (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427078)

don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.

Does not apply in the world of Canadian ISP's

Re:They throttle everything (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427288)

don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.

Does not apply in the world of ISPs

FTFY

Re:They throttle everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37427376)

recently AVM (who is not even an ISP) upgraded their fritz!boxes in germany. well that is they provided an update that you could download from the box's web interface, which quite a few people of course did. Among other things one of the features of the new update is that you make more than 20 connections per second the fritz!box will reset your internet connection.
This behavior was easily fixed by downgrading. I'm lucky they didn't implement this at the ISP where I can't have control over the hardware.

Re:They throttle everything (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427246)

Er, if your ISP is using NAT they are doing it wrong. You should have a public IP.

Now if your router is being stupid, that's hardly their fault... but then again this is not what you said.

Re:They throttle everything (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427436)

Some ISPs have to NAT now. There just aren't enough addresses to go around, and they put off the upgrade to IPv6 for a decade because they didn't want the hastle. Also, NAT screws up p2p completly, which is a nice incidential benefit for the ISPs - p2p users put a lot of load on the network.

Re:They throttle everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37430118)

Considering that he says he changed cable companies, presumably he left all the other hardware alone. If this is the case, I think we can safely say that it was Rogers and not his own router.

Re:They throttle everything (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37431908)

Er, if your ISP is using NAT they are doing it wrong. You should have a public IP.

Seven billion people, four billion IPv4 addresses. Something has to give.

That saying doesn't apply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37430098)

That saying doesn't apply to two things: governments and ISPs. And sometimes stupidity is malice, look at corporations that hide safety concerns from their employees.

Re:They throttle everything (1)

zennyboy (1002544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427470)

I have to say I had that problem, only to find my router had "Hack alert" type thing enabled (port spamming awareness or something). When uTorrent got busy, the router dropped the connection. Once I'd disabled this (took me MONTHS to discover) all was fine. I'd thought it was my ISP all along, but it was my router...

If you can access your router with decent settings I'd check this out...

Re:They throttle everything (1)

Grieviant (1598761) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428264)

Indeed they do. In the past I used to watch MLG gaming broadcasts that were streamed with Octoshape, a proprietary P2P service. After having a lot of problems over the months, I started to think the problem was on my end and contacted Rogers. The response from their tech support was an unapologetic "we throttle all P2P". I tried several times to explain that the broadcast was completely above board, no piracy, etc., but he didn't care in the least and wouldn't even discuss the possibility of a fix. This was around the time when Rogers had been caught throttling WoW updates that used P2P and had promised to fix the problem ..... within 4 MONTHS!?!?

Re:They throttle everything (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37429760)

I'm moving shortly, and am deciding between Teksavvy DSL or Teksavvy cable. Do you have any experience with their DSL service, and if so, how does their cable service compare?

It's a nice start but... (2)

Commontwist (2452418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426470)

This is something that really should have been addressed a while ago, not after months and months of hoping Rogers would fix it. Many Canadian telecos like Rogers and Bell are seriously needing some reining in on more than a few matters. I really hope that the CRTC is finally getting reality instead of being spoon fed it by Bell and co.

It's also unfortunately clear that unless the public screams bloody murder that the Canadian--oops, HARPER--government will do very, very little proactively to improve the internet situation. Unless votes are threatened--ziltch.

Re:It's a nice start but... (0)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427722)

"HARPER--government will do very, very little proactively to improve the internet situation. Unless votes are threatened--ziltch."

Meanwhile Harper is spending all his time clamming up any source of information that could say anything coming out of government and busily toiling away in the background AGAINST the public good for his corporate buddies.

If you think some previous governments have had some bad scandals revealed in recent years, they're nothing to what Harper is going to do/doing with this government. You'll never even know 90% of it and the 10% that ever gets found out will make all previous look like childs play.

The man is a fucking slimeball and I really wish the Canadian population would wake up to it.

Re:It's a nice start but... (1)

MMCD (1604405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37429312)

They do react when votes are threatened, when Bell and Rogers tried to bring in Usage Based Billing, everyone cared about it, and the Tories could sniff the political winds.... (and then they intervened to forbid UBB, for not Canadians who didnt follow these events) A political campaign will have a big effect, since the Tories arent going to do anything unpopular, they arent that courageous The CRTC doesnt serve Canadians, the wolves are looking after the sheep, it needs to be shook up, if that means bringing it to the ministerial level, that might be what it takes. Some countries have a minister to look after telecommunications. If it was a more politicized thing, then it would be more responsive to voters, and less a clique of ex-employees of telcos trying to keep things cozy for their favourite pets, a minister working on his career will be more motivated to present progressive consumer-friendly reforms.

Re:It's a nice start but... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37430312)

They do react when votes are threatened, when Bell and Rogers tried to bring in Usage Based Billing, everyone cared about it, and the Tories could sniff the political winds....

That was during the run up to an election. Since the Tories got a majority, no election is going to happen for 4 years, so they can do pretty much whatever the hell they like for the next 3 years without having much effect on their votes.

Who cares? I just wanna creampie a Muslim woman. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426488)

That's right. Let me give you what that angry, uptight SOB you married can't.

Stop getting throttled altogether (4, Informative)

rsax (603351) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426490)

Teksavvy have been offering MLPPP as an addon service for a while; it allows their subscribers to evade Bell's throttling. There's even a fork of the Tomato firmware [fixppp.org] dedicated for this. And a friend told me that one of their customer service reps said you can work around Rogers' throttling using this modem [tigerdirect.ca]. Just opt for ISPs that aren't Bell or Rogers.

Re:Stop getting throttled altogether (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426596)

Teksavvy have also had extreme bandwidth problems recently. Some of us are getting less than a megabit per second in the evenings.

Re:Stop getting throttled altogether (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37430148)

Your friend is full of shit just so you know. I think your friend is just computer stupid (but pretends not to be) and heard the 6120 does channel bonding (as does every docsis 3 modem) and then assumed like a retarded that channel bonding on Rogers would get rid of the throttling because channel bonding (MLPPP) does the same on Bell's network. (via Teksavvy). Teksavvy cable isn't throttled in any way at the moment. (I'm sure rogers is working on this aspect).

"Throttling" services (4, Interesting)

anubi (640541) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426496)

I am getting fed up with this idea.

If I sign up for 10Mb service, I feel I should get it. If I agreed to 29.99 a month, I should pay it. I feel terribly shortchanged when I do not get the service advertised, regardless of the "businesstalk" fine print in their contract.

I live in a country (USA) whose lawmakers find me in terrible breach of law if I as much as download a song. Yet a "health insurance" company can accept premium after premium for years, only to rescind the insurance when the insured comes to need it. None of our "honorable" suits-and-ties of Congress even see fit to require the insurance company to even as much as refund every premium ever sent them. Geez, that's like asking a shoplifter just to pay for what he stole.

Here we are, in a "jobs" crisis, yet we behave like first graders turned out to the play-yard. The first big kid takes control of the merry-go-round and wants a buck to ride. The "engineer" kid gets fed up and starts building his own. The "entrepreneur" who snared control of the first merry-go-round sees it and sends his thugs (lawyers) over to smash it.

Now, our governments are all in a tizzy cause the only way they can keep any cash in the economy is to run the printing presses fullbore.

This whole mess has originated in Congress. It will take a leap of Congressional insight to fix it.

Hint: Enforce the payments law only to the extent one pays for what one GETS. If the ISP screws up the credit rating of one who withheld payment because of throttled bandwidth, then whoever submitted the credit rating ding will be liable for damages, no different than the one who is liable for damages for downloading a song.

There is nothing like responsibility for insuring honesty.

Its something sorely lacking in today's authority laden political and business hierarchies.

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

hendrikboom (1001110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426574)

Prove all things

Yeah, but most moderns don't realize that that's "prove" in its old-fashioned sense of "test". Once your realize that, it makes sense.

A related, but different, modern saying is, "That which is not tested is broken".

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

blane.bramble (133160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428414)

In similar fashion is "the exception that proves the rule" - same meaning of prove as above - the basic meaning is that it is the unusual circumstances that will test whether your rule works, not the circumstances ou were prepared for.

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 2 years ago | (#37431330)

A related, but different, modern saying is, "That which is not tested is broken".

"That which has been tested and found not to be broken, has not been tested enough."

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426630)

Offtopic much? Try commenting on the article instead of going off on some big butthurt rant.

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

anubi (640541) | more than 2 years ago | (#37431300)

Your advice is noted.

You are right, in the sense I did not stick specifically to throttling services.

I am in interested in high speed internet. I am still on dialup. I go to McDonalds with my laptop to use their high speed internet. Its hosted by AT&T and speedtest.net will consistently rate them a F- in connection speed. "AT&T delivers" is kinda a joke. But its better than what I have at home. If I enable JavaScript, the page likely won't load at all on dialup, as I will encounter TCP timeouts before the sluggish connections muster the data rate needed to keep the TCP sockets alive.

I read all their advertising crap and its so full of "up-to"s and disclaimers and all I find guaranteed is the price and the 12 to 24 months commit I must agree to, regardless of their performance.

I used to work in aerospace in Southern California. I do thermodynamics and microcontroller design. Thermal energy transfer. Refrigeration. Very unconventional systems - mostly based on Propane (R290). The microcontroller stuff is mostly to eliminate the need for control panels as I much prefer letting a switch DHCP me and let me display what I want via HTML and bitmaps using TCP/IP.

I have been playing around with desalination, using lorentz and hall-effect forces to separate saline from fresh water... but I really don't have the financial resources to implement such a thing on a larger scale,

I know if I built it for sale, I would just receive a letter telling me I can't do this, and a larger company would just take my work and be done with it. Bigger fish eat small, and the big fish work with Washington to make sure it stays that way.

I wanted to start my own company. Damn near lost my shirt. No way could I compete in the legal environment where everything I did violated someone's IP.

Its like being a writer where someone else "owns" every word I want to use.

I have my government telling me whatever I try to do is illegal, but if I will just admit to being mentally ill with asperger's syndrome, they will put me on welfare.

I am 60 years old. And with a Scots-Irish/Seminole temperament to boot. You know the white man was never able to "domesticate" the American Indian into slavery to work his cotton field.

In order to get a job with a "big company" , I have to interview someone who is more interested in what "certs" I have, and there is no way he's going to discuss either thermodynamics or internet protocols with me. I am just about ready to take the Government up on their offer and move to Maggie Valley. I only have five more years to go till social security kicks in anyway. The conservative side of me yells to "conserve my resources", not do anything, and wait it out. The government demands inactivity and they are gonna really take a hit out of anyone who does otherwise.

To me, "asperger's syndrome" is just another word for "work ethic". I am INTP. I guess that means I derive far more enjoyment from crafting an elegant thermodynamic system than from watching endless sports programming.

Dammit, I want to do what I trained to do. Engineering. But I do realize America is no longer a manufacturing economy. We make money selling insurance and land to each other. As I noted in my post, the school bully owns the rights to the merry-go-round and he's got the mob of US Legislators to protect his "right" to keep me form building another one.

I do not have the ass-kissing skill to "work with" legislators to "allow" me to do anything.

All that math and science I studied was moot. Why did I waste my youth on such useless frivolity? Yet, I realize given my "disability", I was never cut out to have a career telling others what they would be allowed to do, I was cut out to DO things.

So, I sit in frustration, like watching some ignoramus who has no idea how to put a nut on a bolt try to change a tire, while uniformed police officers tell me not to say a word. I know the uniformed police officer is paid from the printing press, and Government has absolutely no liability whether the tire gets changed or not. They are just paid to make sure I don't mess with it because I do not have the rights to produce anything.

I figure when things get bad enough, the system will topple and productivity will again be tolerated in our nation.

Re:"Throttling" services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426694)

I don't download stuff continuously, but when I do I like it to be fast. So I'll pay for high speed service, but I don't want to be subsidizing your attempt to get 100% utilization out of your 10mb connection. So caps and throttling after that is fine with me, as long as I never reach it.

Re:"Throttling" services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37426784)

Do you also drink Dos Equis?

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

kcbnac (854015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427192)

I have a (general) policy of avoiding companies who believe in the "what the big print giveth...the fine print taketh away." As they are not really interested in serving me, as raping me.

FUCK. THEM.

I'll stick to smaller, local companies whom actually CARE that I'm happy - ALL THE TIME. They'll actually try to help me - even if it means me moving companies - but they won't intentionally try to fuck me.

Somehow, I don't find it at all odd that Muse's 'Uprising' decided to play via my music player's random function as I read this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog [youtube.com]
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Uprising_(song) [wikimedia.org]

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427358)

Billing based upon the Mb/s a data service provides is about as meaningful as billing based upon the A an electrical service provides.

Which is to say that it doesn't make sense at all. You need to provide way too much capacity for peak consumption so the cost of providing service skyrockets.

Canadian ISPs tried to fix that with UBB. Their approach may have been deeply flawed, but it was an acknowledgement that billing needs to be based upon consumption. The people who consume a lot pay more for the network infrastructure, and those who do not consume as much pay less for the network infrastructure. The problem is people were screaming bloody murder about that because they basically want everything for free.

And please don't try to claim otherwise if you are opposed to UBB because you're basically saying that you want to pay a buck for a cup of coffee with unlimited refills, even if you decide to hang around the coffee shop all day and get 20 refills. When you reach that point, you are really paying to make yourself feel better. You're not actually paying for the service.

So instead we're stuck with throttling, which is mostly a way of trying to distribute service usage over a longer time period. (Unless you download a disproportionate amount, in which case you're getting less service.)

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

rho180 (1057712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428216)

Billing based upon the Mb/s a data service provides is about as meaningful as billing based upon the A an electrical service provides.

Which is to say that it doesn't make sense at all. You need to provide way too much capacity for peak consumption so the cost of providing service skyrockets.

Canadian ISPs tried to fix that with UBB.

The recent flap over UBB had nothing to do with fixing this problem you describe. Rogers and Bell have had UBB on their own customers for years now. What Bell tried to do recently was to force third party ISPs to adopt UBB on their own customers to remove that competition from the marketplace. Third party ISPs like Teksavvy already pay Bell based on the peak bandwidth that their customers use, i.e., on the Bell-to-Teksavvy network link, Teksavvy pays for enough bandwidth to accomodate their peak consumption. What Bell tried to imposed was a further tariff on Teksavvy data that would force Teksavvy to pass on this type of billing to its customers. This tariff would have such a small wholesale discount (I think it was something like 10 or 15% compared to what Bell customers are paying at retail) that Teksavvy would essentially be forced to charge its customers the same rates that Bell does.

As for the "morality" of being against UBB, all I know is that Teksavvy provides a good service using their flat-price billing model and they apparently make money off of it. If the time comes that they decide they can no longer provide a decent service using this business model, I'll lament the loss of my flat-pricing, but I won't begrudge them the need to change their pricing model if they can no longer make money under flat-pricing (just like I don't begrudge Bell their right to charge their customers how they please). But I certainly do object to Bell leveraging their last-mile monopoly to force competition out of the marketplace.

Re:"Throttling" services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37428220)

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. UBB is a complete misnomer. "Usage Based Billing" implies that a person PAYS FOR WHAT THEY USE.

If I pay X dollars a month for Y GB of throughput, then I should be able to get that full Y GB. If I go over, I have to pay them extra. But if I'm under, they DO NOT pay me the difference. That doesn't sound like usage-based billing to me, that sounds more like insurance.

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428262)

The problem is every time we 'pay for what we use' no average consumer can meet what the ISP's want to charge. Mostly because the cost jumps up to the level of a business. Obviously either they simply want to much or they don't charge businesses nearly enough either. The first is more true then the second, though it is the second they try to make seem reasonable.

Other countries have no problem charging less than american ISP's for more bandwidth and more total consumption as things stand now. If the american (and Canadian) companies can't do the same then they are simply doing it wrong!

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428496)

I would have no problem paying two parts a fixed cost for x sized pipe and a variable cost for my 95% usage and y for calling support for a local problem. But like any other utility I should only be paying the rel cost of that usage in the states that's less than a buck a megabit. The problem with the usage based billing from these companies is it's like txt messaging rates, they are not looking to make sure that people pay for what they use but rather want to have a huge financial windfall.

ISP's basically have 4 costs related to service, the cost of the local loop from the co to your house, For DSL/Fios this is dedicated bandwidth for cable/wimax it's shared but they can add more bits so that a given set is shared between less and less people. After that it should be a dark fiber network (if not there complete idiots or somebody is forcing them to us lit glass as exhortation prices) some L3 switch gear (read realy cheap compared to a real router) and finally transit links at the major peering points. If they are a major player they do not pay for transit (they might on paper to there parent company) 10ge and up transit is under a dollar a meg 95 percentile. The final cost is support and it's a big one as most end users are idiots.

Does that mean since I'm around the block from my ISP, only called once with a local issue and I needed them to help troubleshoot (failing cable modem tested fine to it's IP but the analog side was twitchy) so there cost to give me server would be low. I find it deplorable that AT&T is capping it's users it pays nothing from transit and can put up it's own glass on telephone poles nearly anywhere it wants to get to and it's DSL service rides on top of existing infrastructure for the last mile. Buying switch and dwdm gear is not that expensive and is a long term investment, maybe if you keep buying the cheapest thing to get you buy so your next quarters financials look better it might be expensive doing that every quarter.

Re:"Throttling" services (1)

tzanger (1575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37430300)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. UBB was never about paying for what you use. It was a way for Bell/Rogers to force the wholesalers into offering packages that were no better than what Bell/Rogers were providing. The incumbents were using their monopoly on the infrastructure for the last mile to try and "level" the playing field of the competitive carriers.

I have absolutely no problem with paying for what I use. The problem is that the pricing they're trying to force is not reasonable. It doesn't cost even $0.10 for 1MB delivered in a second, yet they were trying to charge well over that per KILObit. I kind of wish that the CRTC gave them exactly what they asked for. I wish the CRTC gave them usage based billing, but enforced pricing based on legitimate data costs plus a legitimate profit. If they wanted to make more money than that, they'd have to find a way to cut costs without cutting service.

Connectivity in Canada is terribly, terribly out of touch with reality. There are a few monopolies who still own a huge chunk of the last mile, and short of cutting all ties between the last-mile provider and the bandwidth/content provider, nothing will fix this.

Re:"Throttling" services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37427510)

Give me low ping, or give me death!

get a business connection (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37428426)

If I sign up for 10Mb service, I feel I should get it. If I agreed to 29.99 a month, I should pay it. I feel terribly shortchanged when I do not get the service advertised, regardless of the "businesstalk" fine print in their contract.

If you want guaranteed network bandwidth from your ISP get a business connection via a direct fibre pull and pay $300/month (to start).

Oversubscribing is a fact of (economic) life. It's true of ISPs, highways/streets, mobile networks, etc.

A self solving problem? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426520)

It is unfortunate that the alleged brutalizing and violence-inciting tendencies of video games are somewhere between tepid and nonexistent.

Even the most black-hearted ISP would think twice about pissing off hordes of foul mouthed and odorous basement dwellers if a series of spree-killing reprisals were a serious risk...

A plug for Eastlink (2)

germansausage (682057) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426776)

I've been subscribing for about 10 years to a local cable Co / ISP that was lately bought by Eastlink. When I got my HD cable box they upgraded me (for free) from 4.5 Mb/s to 15 Mb/s. Two days ago I got a letter advising that since they have completed the fiber deployment in my neighborhood they are upgrading me (again for free) to 40 Mb/s. Undisclaimer - I don't work for Eastlink or own shares, just a satisfied customer.

Re:A plug for Eastlink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37427866)

I'm also with Eastlink and I'm happy. But as a former mod of a bittorrent tracker I can tell you with certainty that they do throttle a little. I was perplexed for a long time about why my bittorrent speeds were not reaching their full potential until the protocol header encryption feature started being implemented in bittorrent clients. Suddenly my upspeeds jumped by a factor of 5. Eastlink still throttles, they just don't shut you down completely like some of the other ISP's. B

Re:A plug for Eastlink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37429306)

I've been subscribing for about 10 years to a local cable Co / ISP that was lately bought by Eastlink. When I got my HD cable box they upgraded me (for free) from 4.5 Mb/s to 15 Mb/s. Two days ago I got a letter advising that since they have completed the fiber deployment in my neighborhood they are upgrading me (again for free) to 40 Mb/s. Undisclaimer - I don't work for Eastlink or own shares, just a satisfied customer.

Ye ha they upgraded me to 20 from 15 a month or so ago and still throttle my line 24/7 so no good having the extra speed anyways if they limit your line like that. Oh BTW if you actually purchase a Fiber plan from them then you are hard capped at 200gb a month in/out of transfers plus the throttle...

Thanks to Ressy on Freenode (2)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37426790)

If you wish to thank anyone for this, Ressy on Freenode has been spearheading this movement for nearly a year now, having worked closely with Blizzard support staff to uncover the throttling being used as well as worked closely with end users affected by the issue.

Oh, okay. (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427142)

The CRTC's framework also says traffic shaping only should be used as a last resort to deal with network congestion and encourages companies to use "economic measures," such as data caps, to manage demand.

Or, they could, you know, invest in their networks and bring them into the 21st century. It's entirely possible to operate a profitable ISP at lower prices without any kind of throttling or data caps, and without any kind of proxies, BRAS systems, and whatever other manner of junk they put between your loop and the Internet. They just don't want to stop overselling and underdelivering, to paraphrase contemporary internetworking parlance.

Re:Oh, okay. (1)

zyzko (6739) | more than 2 years ago | (#37431038)

Or, they could, you know, invest in their networks and bring them into the 21st century. It's entirely possible to operate a profitable ISP at lower prices without any kind of throttling or data caps, and without any kind of proxies, BRAS systems, and whatever other manner of junk they put between your loop and the Internet. They just don't want to stop overselling and underdelivering, to paraphrase contemporary internetworking parlance.

Yes - but this is hard when at the same time investors demand profit and success in stock market and consumers tend to take the cheapest option - that is why regulators are needed in essential services (which data traffic nowadays is). It is just doesn't work - unfortunately. For businesses the game is different - money buys you guarantees and even more money buys you guarantees that have financial incentives for provider to really, really meet those guarantees, always. But it is not cheap, and in the consumer-space it is all about the price and availability. As long as consumers don't put money where their mouth is we will have this situation - and they won't or can't. Quality has really lost it's value - and markets adjust to that, and if you ask me quality should be enforced by regulation on data services like it is enforced on providing electricity and other utilities.

I'm glad that I live in a country that has ISPs that don't throttle, performance is almost always what is advetised and implementing data caps would cause major backlash. But the harsh reality of the business is that you can get a "geek-connection" sold with premium in some areas to very limited people, others just buy the cheapest and occasionally bitch because their torrent/wow/netflix stutters but they really don't want (or are able to realistically) change providers either.

Australia gets it right (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427466)

Australian ISPs give you x amount of GB per month as part of your plan. Some offer the option to buy more data blocks or even (in a few cases) unlimited data. When you exceed your quota your entire internet connection is rate limited to 64k or 128k or something similar (exactly how much depends on the ISP and plan)

If I am on a 50GB plan and want to use the entire 50GB in the first week of the monthly cycle downloading from BitTorrent, I can do that and my ISP doesn't care.

Say what you will about shaping but bandwidth ain't free and its far better to have hard limits for how much you can use and no restrictions on how you use that than to have the ISPs block p2p, BitTorrent or whatever else.

Re:Australia gets it right (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428000)

Having spent significant amounts of time in Australia, as well as other countries, Australia hasn't got it right. Internet in Australia is bloody expensive, and limited in performance and coverage. Take TPG for instance, their 50GB plan is effectively halved because they have a concept of off-peak usage, which isn't conveniently timed for the average person. Furthmore, that limit is uploads and downloads combined, whereas most places only seem to consider downloads. Of course, they don't even let you buy more bandwidth, but force you to upgrade your plan altogether, even if you're only trying to avoid being to ISDN speeds for a few days - RIP OFF!

I currently live in London, one of the most expensive cities in the world. My ISP isn't particularly cheap, but I get uncapped bandwidth (up/down speed and bytes transferred), and it's about half the price of one of those limited TPG plans.

the 32000ms question (1)

epine (68316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37427554)

Here's a question about ISP bungling. I signed up with Shaw in British Columbia pretty much the week they began service. I've used them for a long time, and have mostly been pleased with the service.

A couple of years ago, I started to have some severe performance problems. On my OpenBSD firewall, I would start a ping process and watch the ping arrival times. About once a minute, the ping responses disappear for 30s. Then all thirty ping packets showed up simultaneously with measured delays more or less forming the integers 30..1. And for a while subsequently, packets would flow normally again.

If the ping is the only process running, it would ping one per second for hours. As soon as I ran any other packet stream through the firewall concurrently, I would see this problem again. At the time I had a GB network switch which worked well, but tended to run awfully hot, and some suspect cable runs. I messed around with gear substitutions quite a bit thinking it was OpenBSD going strange with ethernet corruption. It's hard to imagine what corner of the room OpenBSD has available to send all those packets to cool their jets for up to 30s. For a long while the machine was a Pentium Pro that just wouldn't die, with Intel nics (usually fxp0). I also had many old Via Rhine cards around, and those were in there from time to time. My packet filter was bog standard with some of the scrubbing options enabled.

Finally I've convinced myself the problem is not at my end, and I call up Shaw. I get this chipper 20-something who thinks he has the world by the tail. My experience with Shaw is that 1/3 of the agents are useful, 1/3 don't get in the way, and 1/3 detect competence as an obstacle to concluding the service call. This guy was 99th percentile in the last 1/3. Smart enough to think he could define his way to a conclusion, but not smart enough to pick up the exponential decline in my tolerance for his behaviour.

The usual ensued. He basically insisted that we connect a "regular" PC directly to the connection. I used my partner's OS X machine, since "regular" for me lives at the bottom of a dark closet never to be exhumed. We went to a speed measurement site, and the connection performed flawlessly. Cognito sum ergo, Horatio, there has never been an issue with Shaw network configuration since the caveman woke up with a headache after sleeping on top of the monolith. In bakeoff-free inference logic: A => B and B => C, then A => C, where => stands for "doesn't fuck up" when used together.

I convinced him that this was not sufficient (to get me off the phone) so we continued to assess and we ventured into some simple A/B comparisons, I forget the details. He sent me off to the back room to reset the connection yet again (god knows why). I came back 15s longer than some of the previous times. He asked me why. I said, "first, before I mucked with new test, I checked that our baseline case had remained unchanged".

He was instructing the tests to run A - B - C - E - W - Vishnu - Xenu and beyond. I was going A - B - A - C - A - D - A - E. Only I was fast enough it took five iterations for him to notice. He chewed me out for not following his instructions to the letter. HARSH words were exchanged at this precise juncture. Shaw's telephone support recording device passed through the glass transition phase before hardening onto the capstan. We terminated the call and for a week I had no more time available to waste on the problem. Then one day the problem just went away. Magic. By this point I had permanently replaced the Gbit switch, and I thought, weirder things have happened, but is it really possible that OpenBSD has a 30-second holding tank for outbound ping packets only when other packet streams are running concurrently? There are things in life that are implausible, yet true, but these usually have some shred of potential mechanism before you discover how three balls all fall into the same pocket on a single pool shot.

Subsequently, we ended up moving around town several times in short succession. The same network configuration worked fine, until the last stop. When I arrive at my present location, I'm seeing the old 30s ping phantom yet again. After a month, it hadn't cleared up. I thought about calling Shaw and being directed to connect a "regular" PC (which works fine) and decided against it. Instead I subscribed to Telus. Plugged Telus into the same nic interface, worked flawlessly from the first packet. One thing about Telus with this wireless appliance they gave me, when you are doing a heavy download, there is terrible lag trying to access a simple web page concurrently. But it works fairly well, except for the long weekend where one of their name servers had a recursive query configuration bug. The Telus guy was actually fairly patient with me. Of course it was working fine when I let him monitor one of my screens. Then I said, "let me try this for a moment with nslookup". First try, nytimes.com or something more prominent, massive DNS resolution error. I've talked to family members who have used Telus a lot, and the book is that Telus schedules incompetence for long weekends. Watch out for that junior admin when senior admin takes a junket to Vegas.

I could haul some wires around and use a Linux box to sniff the OpenBSD to Shaw network link with my 10mbit hub providing the party-line collision domain. Wow, what's the upside on that? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I chose instead the open arms of Telus, the same people who bilked me for long distance network access fees if I forget just once to use my on-demand long distance service provided dialing prefix. Yeah, I'm the kind of guy who will dial an extra 10 digits on every long distance call to preserve the illusion of choice in these relationships. The whole point of not changing my default provider is that I dislike loyalty in technical relationships with a burning intensity. Smart packets route around failure: on the very next call.

That shiny kid whom I F-bombed (in a moment of weakness) until my eyes glowed red in their sockets is still out there unrepentant. I'm sure of it. His mental bucket consists of "old people are awfully cranky" when his mental bucket should have something to do with old people resenting being pushing in front of a train determined to leave the platform five minutes ahead of schedule.

On one side of the room, people reason "well, if this new router configuration causes problems, people will phone up and we'll hear about it". On the other side of the room, people reason "answering the phone costs money, we're not listening if there's any way to arrange it".

They could test and gold plate their router configuration for a month of Sundays. That would cost money. Or they can put it out there when it's getting close enough, and wait for astute customers to help them identify the edge cases. Except that isn't what happens. They have the shiny kid to ensure this. From the first perspective, my call is saving them money, since I'm helping them debug for free, except the reality is that I got scolded for going A - B - A - C in the support process over 20 cents in customer support salary.

If that kid ends up in the Beetlejuice waiting room to eternity with Ackermann(10,10) on his paper slip it will be no loss of human potential from my side of the attic.

Re:the 32000ms question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37427992)

Thanks for your rant, but I think they gave you those meds for a good reason. :)

Re:the 32000ms question (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428670)

We went to a speed measurement site, and the connection performed flawlessly.

He told you to slosh a bunch of nop packets back and forth over a route with an unknown number of hops or was that your decision? Testing traffic rates properly requires you to use known data over a known path so, if needed, you can check each hop on that path. If they tell you to use an online speed test tell the to GFY.

is it really possible that OpenBSD has a 30-second holding tank for outbound ping packets only when other packet streams are running concurrently

No; but, ICMP can be effected by blocking broadcast traffic. If you have a lot of multicast broadcast traffic or they are stopping on UDP packets meant for broadcasting routes it will effect routing tables. If they are using a shitty leaky bucket algo to rate shape then it could easily look like the ICMP packets were "held in the bucket".

Gigabit isn't necessary? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428566)

While Internet service providers have said they need to manage online traffic to deal with network congestion during peak hours, the CRTC has instituted a policy stipulating that the noticeable degradation of time-sensitive Internet traffic requires prior commission approval under Canada's Telecommunications Act.

Maybe they should deal with network congestion by building a faster infrastructure. Perhaps that gigabit network that "nobody could possibly use" IS necessary.

IP based fair share.. (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#37428614)

The default is to randomly drop packets, which effectively shares the bandwidth equally between all TCP streams, and UDP is kind of undefined. At home I have set up "tc" on linux to share the bandwidth equally between my machines (+1 allocation for wi-fi leechers). It's a pain to set up, but it makes *much* more sense to divide bandwitdh by IP address than by TCP stream. Why can't ISP set up something like this?

In tc one can use a "Hierarchical Token Bucket (HTB)" where one can set 1) a "rate", which is the guaranteed rate that a class of traffic (e.g. an IP address) gets, and 2) "ceil" which is the max. bandwidth that the class can use if there is additional available bandwidth. Excess bandwidth is shared according to the relative proportion of the rates. The ISP could set the "rate" to be 1/10 of the advertised speed, or what ever factor they use. Protocol-based shaping and prioritation can then be done within each class, affecting only the relative priority of a user's data, but IMHO this is better to leave to the user (though, it's difficult to do ingress shaping for the user).

ISPs have really expensive routers, why can't they do this? Should be simple actually, much easier than tracking connections. There is no reason that 3 Mbps of Skype traffic from customer A should trump 3 Mbps of torrenting from customer B. Just keep the buffering at the shaping device, and the latency will be small.

So Net Neutrality for online gamers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37428862)

What about the rest of us?

Re:So Net Neutrality for online gamers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37430136)

Festivus.

The worst part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37428864)

The worst part of this whole thing is what Rogers has admitted trips their throttling filters

"Other peer-to-peer applications are running at the same time"
"The game or application was misclassified by network traffic management systems, as in the case of World of Warcraft"
"All the applications classified as peer-to-peer traffic have a combined bandwidth of 80 kilobits per second or more – the threshold that trips the network traffic management system."

Emphasis mine, I don't know about anyone else but paying for an "Up to 75Mbps" connection (quoted from their website as 'Ultimate Internet') and then getting throttled at 80kbps is akin to theft.

Next? (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 2 years ago | (#37429050)

It would be nice if they went after Telus next for throttling the skype connections from their smartphone database plans. Every time i use my iphone and skype, i get such bad connection upload/download speeds, yet the exact same amount of upload and download speed is fine when using skyp on say my computer.
I am sure they are watching for any skype connections to tamper with, as this costs them money from a long distance stand point.

Or what? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37430888)

They'll set another deadline? Send an even more strongly worded memo?

Note that the CTRC are still "requesting" and that Rogers are still in denial. I think I know who's going to blink first on this one.

Get rid of patent, copyright, trademark, etc law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37431902)

Problem solved.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...