Beta
×

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!

CRTC Says Rogers Violating Federal Net Neutrality Rules

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the smoke-signals-are-faster dept.

Canada 165

beaverdownunder writes "A Canadian CRTC investigation in partnership with Cisco has found that Rogers Communications has violated federal net-neutrality rules by throttling connections related to P2P applications. Rogers has until noon on February 3rd to reply to the accusations or face a hearing." Quoting the letter sent to Rogers: "On the basis of our evidence to date, any traffic from an unidentified time-sensitive application making use of P2P ports will be throttled resulting in noticeable degradation of such traffic."

cancel ×

165 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally (4, Informative)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809845)

Rogers (and Bell) have been abusing their customers since the beginning, this is just another example. I hope the CRTC sticks it to them, and I really hope this becomes very public. Please share this everywhere, so the hatred towards this duopoly in Canada can grow even more.

And yes, I use Rogers, because I literally don't have another choice. And they definitely throttle torrents, during "prime" hours, which is apparently 8am-11pm.

Re:Finally (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809861)

Hey, what is going on? Is today the new April.1st?

Re:Finally (5, Interesting)

atlasdropperofworlds (888683) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809913)

So does Shaw. I get bizarre behavior with Skype (distortions, connection problems) at non-peak hours. If I run speed test at those times, both my download and upload capacity max out. It's all very annoying. I also have inside information that Shaw has had throttling equipment in for almost 10 years now, and that they do use it.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810219)

I wouldn't blame all Skype issues on your ISP.

The problems with Skype are pretty much universal. But some of them might be due to your ISP.

Re:Finally (2)

fullmetal55 (698310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810243)

Inside information not withstanding, as a longtime Shaw High-speed customer, (we signed up with "Shaw Wave" when it was first brought into our town in 1998) They told us up front, that excessive use will cause throttling. As Shaw migrated to @Home, It was again mentioned that throttling high-usage accounts would occur. with the caveat that it was once you reached 4 GB of data downloaded per month you'd be throttled down, with your speed refreshed the first of the month, repeat offenders would receive letters, and face possible disconnection. They've had the ability to for longer than 10 years, and have only in the last 10 years (since abandoning @Home) not advertising this ability in their TOS. in experience however, the throttling only ever took place for repeat offenders, who continually broke the barrier got Shaw's attention.

Re:Finally (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810397)

So forget about downloading a Linux ISO?

Re:Finally (3, Interesting)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810407)

And it's done on a per-IP basis, not a per-household or per-account basis. Since you get (at least) 2 dynamic IPs per Shaw Internet account, all you have to do is separate your "normal" traffic from your "excessive" traffic.

For example, we setup to routers at our house, with a switch between them and the cable router. They each get a different IP via DHCP.

Torrents and other "bandwidth hogs" go through one router. All other traffic goes through the other router.

That way, when they throttle all traffic through one IP, it doesn't affect our normal web browsing activities.

Re:Finally (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810525)

4 GB in a month is not excessive. That's less than the average bandwidth of a 14.4k modem. Remember those?

Most sane Internet services set their cap at 250 GB these days. A 30 GB cap is considered paltry. 4 GB is... well, the only place that's remotely acceptable is on an untethered cellular phone.

Shaw's current limits are much higher (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810999)

Their current monthy data allowances start at 60GB for the 2Mbps plan. The 20Mbps plan has a 200GB allowance, and there are a number of truly unlimited plans.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810297)

Shaw doesn't throttle torrents. Or doesn't try very hard to.

Source: 100mbit down 10mbit up capped 24/7 for the last 4 months

Re:Finally (3, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810521)

Your experience is probably because their 100 Mb is only available as "unlimited" (500GB cap).

nope, there's a real unlimited option (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811043)

There are three 100Mbps plans, the 500GB cap one is $84.90/month, the 750GB one is $94.90, and the truly unlimited one is $134.90.

Theoretically, on the unlimited plan you could download 30 terabytes in a month.

Re:nope, there's a real unlimited option (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811151)

Must be a regional thing. All they show as available here is 100Mbps/500GB or 250Mbps/750GB, and a few lower plans.

Either that or they don't show the higher limit plans on the site.

Re:nope, there's a real unlimited option (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811275)

Crap. Highest in my area is 25mbps down, 10 up. You never see those speeds either.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810673)

Skype uses two endpoints: you and the person you are communicating with. It is also subject to jitter problems which do not necessarily show themselves during a speed test.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810037)

And yes, I use Rogers, because I literally don't have another choice.

Me either. Unless I track down which neighbour it is I'm leeching my connection off of and encourage them to switch to telus. This is good news indeed.

Re:Finally (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810161)

Why is Canada dominated by this company?

Here in the U.S. we have two sometimes three different internet companies to choose from. It prevents them from being abusive to customers (since then we would just switch companies).

Re:Finally (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810221)

Here in the U.S. we have two sometimes three different internet companies to choose from. It prevents them from being abusive to customers (since then we would just switch companies).

Wait a minute, you are actually trying to say with a straight face that the USA has a competitive residential internet market, with low prices, high speeds and good customer service?

My ass.

Re:Finally (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810237)

Why is Canada dominated by this company?

Here in the U.S. we have two sometimes three different internet companies to choose from. It prevents them from being abusive to customers (since then we would just switch companies).

Here in some places (but not enough) of the U.S. we have two, sometimes three different internet companies to choose from.

FTFY

Re:Finally (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810253)

I imagine it has something to do with population density. We are kinda spread out up here.. makes it hard to have competing services given the cost of infrastructure compared to the number of potential customers.

Re:Finally (2)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810269)

It prevents them from being abusive to customers (since then we would just switch companies).

That works until they start colluding, as Rogers and Bell do.

Re:Finally (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810339)

I don't know where you live, but every market I've lived in in the past decade (which has been 4 of them now) in the US has had the following internet options:

1. Verizon DSL. moderately priced, but slow. Like "what the hell is it 1999?!" slow.
1a. perhaps one or two companies reselling verizon DSL. same product, different company on your monthly bill. what's the point.

2. Comcast or Timewarner or Cox cable. Faster, but prone to both overselling and random packetloss. 9 times out of 10 they don't care about either.

3. Verizon or AT&T promises of FIOS/U-Verse access to your neighborhood "some day". When you poll people you know (who care about such things) you can't find a single person who actually has access to these products, despite the product being nominally "available" in your city.

The best internet access I ever had was when I was younger and under-employed, my wife and I lived in a community full of people who were for the most part too poor to afford the luxury of cable internet (so were we, but being a geeks, we dispensed with things like cable tv and a house phone instead), so we were one of the only people on the node. That was pretty sweet.

Re:Finally (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811369)

3a. They rip out all the copper when they install, forever making your home totally inaccessible to traditional copper networks. Oh, and whether or not you have service with them, these bastages tromp all over your property, hack down all your trees, and leave the lumber lying on your lawn-- so they totally don't deserve any money.

Re:Finally (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810663)

Why is Canada dominated by this company?

Shaw and Rogers, over the years (Rogers has been around since the 1960s), bought up smaller competing cable companies, then did a cross-country territory swap: Shaw got the West, Rogers got the East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Cable#History [wikipedia.org]

Re:Finally (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810721)

I have the choice of low speed Qwest DSL where I can't use a router, or higher speed and higher price Cox cable modem service. Cox blocks mail ports, so I can't connect with a mail client to any email server other than their own.

I have amazing choices available to me.

Re:Finally (1)

Clueless Moron (548336) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810861)

There are gobs to choose from: See canadianisp.ca [canadianisp.ca] .

To be fair most all of them rent most of their infrastructure from Bell or Rogers, but their policies can be quite different. For example, my ISP permits me to run servers and is net neutral on their network. Once the packets hit someone else's fiber it's beyond their control of course.

Re:Finally (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810321)

RTFA before you get too excited. They do throttle bit torrent, openly, because it is legal for them to do so. FTFA:

The Telecommunications Act and CRTC regulations allow throttling of peer-to-peer file sharing programs like BitTorrent, but not of time-sensitive internet traffic like video chatting or gaming.

Not a Victory... (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810477)

...unless there are serious repercussions.

It's no more a victory than a bully who's been caught stealing your lunch money. They won't repay, they won't stop bullying, they just wont' bully you for your lunch money... probably.

(BTW, Teksavvy is offering cable Internet now. Switch if you can.)

Re:Finally (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811125)

Where do you live where you don't have another choice? You should check out Teksavvy. They have both DSL ("wet" and "dry" loop (ie with or without dial tone) DSL options, as well as DOCSIS cable.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38811345)

And this is why I'm really happy to have a great cable provider like Videotron here in Quebec. Their prices might not be the best, but the service quality is more than exceptional. They've always been against bandwidth throttling and I doubt their stand on this will ever change.

Someone's gonna get fired! (3, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809857)

From the CRTC, that is. Apparently they didn't get the memo stating who their masters were.

Re:Someone's gonna get fired! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810093)

Yeah, I almost did a double take here.

The CRTC, probably one of the most bought and paid for group of assholes in Canada, is actually doing something vaguely resembling their job.

Part of me suspects someone typed up the email as a joke, but it made it out of the office and now they have to actually deal with it.

Re:Someone's gonna get fired! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810145)

Hey Moderators, if you actually knew the history of the CRTC and how they do business, and where the CRTC board members come from, and who hires them after they leave the CRTC, then you would know this isn't a troll.

Re:Someone's gonna get fired! (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810379)

Totally this.

As a Canadian this action on the part of the CRTC would seem in my benefit. This is the CRTC where just yesterday the former head was whining about how the Internet is making it hard for them to control what Canadians watch. This is the CRTC that wanted to give us caps which may have been appropriate in 1996. That wanted to effectively end video streaming in Canada. This is practically unheard of.

Re:Someone's gonna get fired! (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810293)

CRTC

Definition:
  acronym for "Captured Regulator of Telephone and Cable"

Purpose:
To provide the illusion of a regulatory body for communications in Canada
by ignoring offences of the companies they regulate while ignoring the needs
and the will of the people they were meant to protect.

Status:
Currently staffed by past and future Bell, Rogers and Telus executives.
Actively lobbying for draconian laws written by US content bodies (RIAA, MPAA).

Re:Someone's gonna get fired! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810715)

Definition:
    acronym for "Captured Regulator of Telephone and Cable"

FTFY

Definition of CRTC: Canadian Roadblock To Communication.

YES! (2)

GigaBurglar (2465952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809887)

How about that for irony. If this succeeds it will be +1 for the internet. I love how people are actually taking a stand; I just hope it's enough for things like ACTA which will or will not be ratified next week..

It should be throttled. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38809897)

P2P traffic should take a lower priority over VOIP and other more interactive traffic. That is just common sense. Net Neutrality (IMHO) should allow for ISP throttling when network bandwidth is in contention -- to meet QoS. What I am against, though, is allowing ISPs to outright ban certain types of traffic. Whether that is based on source/destination IP addresses, or whether you are running a server application at home, or what the actual bytes in the traffic represent.

Re:It should be throttled. (5, Insightful)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38809963)

Why?

Let say we both pay $40/month for our internet connection.
I use only 1GB P2P/month, and you use only 1GB VoIP/month. We both have no other traffic.

Why should you get priority over me? I paid as much as you and deserve what I paid for, at full speed.
If an ISP can't offer unlimited traffic for $40/month, then they only have to put data usage caps (preferably only during peak time since that's when there is congestion).
Until I bust my usage cap, I should be able to do what I want without being throttled.

Re:It should be throttled. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810027)

Because a VOIP phone call will suck if the network is congested. Whereas your P2P download can take an extra 30 seconds to keep my call quality good. FYI, I worked on SNA and traffic prioritization was baked into the protocol for exactly these purposes -- TCP/IP is actually quite a dumb protocol in this regard.

Re:It should be throttled. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810241)

But the network is congested because the provider has sold what they don't have. Why you think any other users should be punished because of that fact is beyond me. Fact is, overselling with 10-20:1 ratios on network connections is no longer tenable.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810267)

Because a VOIP phone call will suck if the network is congested.

When the network is congested, it like any other shortage means the price is too low, at least at that time of day. Because that's so easy to fix, there's really no need to prioritize packets.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810309)

When the network is congested, it like any other shortage means the price is too low, at least at that time of day. Because that's so easy to fix, there's really no need to prioritize packets.

I assume your easy fix is to simply increase the price. How does this provide more bandwidth? Do you think that people who are paying MORE for their internet will think "I need to use it less"?p.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810357)

They can offer incensitive to move big downloads at night, when the network is not used. They just have to put a data usage cap during peak time. In fact if they did that they could even lower the price instead of inscreasing it.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811231)

They can offer incensitive to move big downloads at night, when the network is not used. They just have to put a data usage cap during peak time.

How is that significantly different than simply throttling the P2P while the VoIP is requiring bandwidth? You'd rather have a permanent cap "during peak time" than fully open transport except in certain circumstances?

And how does raising the price "incensitive" anyone to do their work at night? I'd say it means "I'm paying more, I expect more."

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810383)

If your VoIP call suck, then switch to a better ISP.
I shouldn't have to be throttled so that you be able to call.
In the worse case YOU should be throttled, I mean, the 99% of your traffic that isn't VoIP, so that your call be priorized over the rest of your traffic.

Re:It should be throttled. (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810567)

If your VoIP call suck, then switch to a better ISP.

How is this possible if only one wired broadband ISP serves your area?

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810497)

Because a VOIP phone call will suck if the network is congested. Whereas your P2P download can take an extra 30 seconds to keep my call quality good.

Perhaps if P2P protocols weren't throttled people could invent more interesting things to use them for, including more time-sensitive applications?

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810529)

Because a VOIP phone call will suck if the network is congested.

The ISP could alternatively decide to always prioritize VOIP traffic and ensure all VOIP packets received longer than n milliseconds ago were sent before any other traffic, which IMO is vastly different than applying P2P throttling.

my packets shouldn't interfere with yours (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811153)

And vice versa. Ideally, the ISP should be doing per-subscriber throttling such that each subscriber cannot exceed their rating. As long as each subscriber is within their limits, they should all be treated equally.

How does the ISP know whether my packets are high priority or not? Just because they're using certain ports doesn't mean they're coming from the expected applications.

Re:It should be throttled. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810097)

Because VoIP is sensitive to things like latency spikes. P2P isn't. If the packets are given the correct priorities, your download finishes in just about the same amount of time while the other person has a nice audio quality. If the VoIP packets aren't given priority your download won't be significantly faster (the same amount of data is still being sent over the same pipes), but the call quality will be abismal.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810159)

That's not the same thing as throttling.

Re:It should be throttled. (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810947)

Yes, it is. It's just throttling over a short period. Latency and throttling are one and the same. You have a piece of pipe that can take hold ten marbles at a time before the marbles come out the other end. If the marbles can flow at only a certain speed (say one marble pulled out per second), then this behaves very much like a network cable. (See, it is a series of tubes.)

It's basically inevitable that bandwidth will be oversold; the cost of running the lines would otherwise be prohibitive. So this is similar to having two people who are allowed to put marbles in at a rate of one per second. Remember that you can only take out one per second from the other end.

Assume that the two people usually put in one marble every two seconds. On average, neither is throttled. However, person A has to guarantee that his marbles get there in exactly ten seconds, and person B does not. If at any point, person A puts in one marble slightly before that two second mark, this means that it delays person B's marble by a second. For that brief moment in time, person B is effectively capped at one marble every three seconds, because he or she was not able to insert a second marble until three seconds after the previous marble.

For a sufficiently large download, the period doesn't even have to be short. Assume that you and I both have connections rated at 1 GB per hour. If you download a 10 GB file over the course of 10 hours, and I make a video call that transfers 2 GB over the course of 2 hours, we're using the same amount of bandwidth averaged over the relevant period.

If the total shared bandwidth available is only 1.5 GB per hour, you can't have the 1 GB per hour you need for the transfer while I have the 1 GB per hour I need for my video call. However, if instead of rate limiting you to 1 GB per hour the whole time, the service provider rate limits you to .5 GB per hour during that 2 hour call and makes up for it by opening up the full 1.5 GB per hour to you during the following two hours, your download time is the same, but my call was successful.

In effect, what service provider temporarily increased the latency of your packets by squeezing them into the gaps between the higher priority traffic, then made up for that latency by reducing the latency it would otherwise have applied during a period when the network was less congested. However, you would say that the network provider throttled your connection during a period of higher demand.

The important factor is not whether the peak demand exceeds the peak bandwidth available, but whether the average demand exceeds the average bandwidth available, and whether the service is advertised based on best-case available bandwidth or average-case available bandwidth.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810163)

I use only 1GB P2P/month, and you use only 1GB VoIP/month. We both have no other traffic. Why should you get priority over me?

Because his application is time-dependent and yours is not. If his application can't get packets through for thirty seconds, the connection is as good as dead. If you can't get packets through for thirty seconds, you probably don't even notice, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference.

Until I bust my usage cap, I should be able to do what I want without being throttled.

And the hell with anyone else and what they have paid to do. Yes, I know, the bad guy is the cable company that doesn't provide enough bandwidth so that every customer can get full throughput simultaneously. Because of that, you feel no compulsion to let someone who is doing real-time things get theirs done and over while yours can lag a bit and make no difference.

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810473)

P2P traffic is not always torrenting. Like the article says "traffic from an unidentified time-sensitive application making use of P2P ports". The application they are testing is time-sensitive just like the VoIP traffic.

Why should my time-sensitive P2P traffic take lower priority over your time-sensitive VoIP? When both people pay the same amount of money. And there are a lot of legit time-sensitive P2P applications... just googling "VoIP using P2P" is one which gets many hits.

The problem here is blindly throttling ports and traffic, when that traffic could be anything. I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if your VoIP application got throttled because it uses a P2P backbone, only because other people sometimes torrent with the same technology.

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810609)

Yea, I'm sure this would be more compelling if you needed to do a massive p2p conference call for work, conferencing with hundreds of clients in throttle-free Europe who insist on using this P2P VoIP to give the conference and presentation (at 2am PST). Because it's so early, you plan to give the presentation at home using your Roger's internet... after all you paid for the $100/month super plan. Since there are so many clients watching the presentation, the P2P conference software was necessary. Then moments after the conference starts, you realize the little bandwidth you need is being massively throttled. You have to explain to all these clients that you have Rogers in Canada, and they throttle the P2P traffic that this application is generating, so you can't give the presentation now, and that you will try again after you switch to Telus. Later in the day you get fired for losing all those potential clients... all because of Rogers.

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810953)

"...traffic from an unidentified time-sensitive application making use of P2P ports...."

So a contrived example, created to explicitly appear like a background file transfer, to prove that the ISP is doing what all ISP should be doing: giving background file-transfers a lower priority on the network.

I'm sorry, but if your "time-sensitive" application is using well known P2P ports -- then the designer was an idiot.

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810527)

Because his application is time-dependent and yours is not. If his application can't get packets through for thirty seconds, the connection is as good as dead. If you can't get packets through for thirty seconds, you probably don't even notice, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference.

Not my problem. Beside, who knows if my P2P application isn't time-dependent? One could probably make some sort of bittorrent streaming protocol.
Also, I might be using some non-standard VoIP protocol that wouldn't receive the same priority just because it's not on the ISP's list. Makes no sense at all.

And the hell with anyone else and what they have paid to do. Yes, I know, the bad guy is the cable company that doesn't provide enough bandwidth so that every customer can get full throughput simultaneously. Because of that, you feel no compulsion to let someone who is doing real-time things get theirs done and over while yours can lag a bit and make no difference.

My ISP do not throttle anything and I can make VoIP calls just fine.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810607)

I'm pretty sure that if you can't get packets through for 30 seconds on a p2p connection you are going to time out... You are basically saying that your phone call is more important than someone else's download.

You are basically saying that because you need to go to work and the roads are congested, I should stay home and not go to the store so you can have a pleasant drive to work.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811365)

I'm pretty sure that if you can't get packets through for 30 seconds on a p2p connection you are going to time out...

So fix P2P so it doesn't time out when it faces delays. It's broken if it does.

You are basically saying that your phone call is more important than someone else's download.

I'm basically saying that getting the packets through for a phone call in a timely manner is more important than getting the packets through immediately for a file sharing connection, yes. Nobody is preventing the file sharing from happening, it's just not as fast as it would be if there were no other users. Gosh, the entire net works that way, at times. Packets for a P2P can be delayed and nothing is hurt. Packets for VoIP being delayed make the protocol unusable.

You are basically saying that because you need to go to work and the roads are congested, I should stay home and not go to the store so you can have a pleasant drive to work.

I said no such thing, and you know it. If you want an automotive analogy, I'm saying that you need to pull over and lose a few seconds of your life when a more critical user needs the road. See those flashing red lights on that ambulance behind you? The person in that ambulance might not die if you don't pull over, but it is still important for him to get where he's going, and that means you get slowed down. Live with it.

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810855)

Because his application is time-dependent and yours is not.

Hey! My pr0n is EXTREMELY important and time-dependent. Dropped frames on the video are BAD!

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810889)

OK, so instead of not oversubscribing and selling bandwidth they don't have, promising speeds they can't provide we'll blame the users?

The right solution is honesty.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810483)

And I P2P over VOIP.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Zeromous (668365) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810537)

You are free to find another VOIP provider that does not permit P2P traffic at all.

Data caps are pure unadulterated crap. (1)

bregmata (1749266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811181)

A data cap is not going to solve the problem of your neutral carrier selectively reading and discarding your data. See, an always-on connection is ALWAYS sending data. A zero bit is data just as much as a one bit. A "data cap" is really just charging you for all the one bits that get sent over the line. It does not reduce the amount of data and it has no effect on how fast others send and receive their data -- that's bound by the equipment on Roger's racks. A data cap is just a way for an ISP to reach around and pull money from your front pcket while they're pounding you from behind.

Re:It should be throttled. (4, Informative)

tonywong (96839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810039)

Why is this common sense? Might need to download a manual shouldn't have a lower priority than your need to talk to Gramma over the interwebs. If your portion of the service you contracted was throttled because _you_ wanted it, that's fine, but my service shouldn't be throttled to your needs. Besides, I manage my QoS with my own firewall, and which packets get prioritized are none of your business, nor should it be my provider's unless I ask them to.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Urban Nightmare (147344) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810111)

+1 to that. I use VOIP for all my phone needs. If I have a crappy phone connection then I shutdown or throttle my own stuff. No need for my ISP to do so. Just give me the bandwidth I pay for. Does any one actually have sympathy for Rogers/Bell/Shaw when they complain about their users actually using the network?

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810223)

I've honestly never had an ISP give me the bandwidth I pay for. It's usually about half of what they "promised".

I've always gotten close to it (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811201)

When I paid for 5Mbps I got 4.9. Now I pay for 25Mbps and I generally get about 22.5.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

tonywong (96839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810121)

Err, Might = My.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810067)

This makes no sense whatsoever. Traffic is traffic. it's no one's business what I do with it unless I'm violating some cap.

Some cap (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810595)

it's no one's business what I do with it unless I'm violating some cap.

Enjoy your 5 GB per month, because wireless is often the only alternative for people dissatistified with cable.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810071)

Then it would no longer be "neutral", would it?

That's kinda like the whole issue, they are throttling one type of traffic and prioritizing others. If we're all paying the same amount for the same amount of bandwidth, how I use said bandwidth is at my discretion, not yours or my ISPs. If I want to sit here and watch the same Youtube video of adorable kittens over and over and over and over and over again, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, that's my business, is it not?

Why should VOIP or any other web service get priority? What makes their usage more worthy of the bandwidth?

Besides, once this particular Pandora's Box gets opened, consumers are boned. You'll see how fast these ISPs start throttling anything and everything, at least, until you purchase the appropriate tiered plan. They'll have the VOIP priority plan, the Web priority plan, the Streaming Media priority plan...all the same pipe, all the same potential for bandwidth consumption, totally different rates. How much you think they'd gouge the "Online Gaming" tier?

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810281)

Then it would no longer be "neutral", would it? That's kinda like the whole issue, they are throttling one type of traffic and prioritizing others.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with prioritizing one KIND of traffic, it has to do with prioritizing SOURCES -- as in "Rogers VoIP services get priority over Skype and Vonage...", or "Rogers streaming video gets priority over Netflix".

Throttling P2P and other non-realtime data so that real-time (VoIP, e.g.) can get through is not violating net neutrality. It's network planning and is part of the IP.

Why should VOIP or any other web service get priority? What makes their usage more worthy of the bandwidth?

VoIP is not a "web service". VoIP should get priority because when bandwith is limited it needs it for the service to work. Your P2P will handle delays in packets getting through. It doesn't care. VoIP does because people do.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810465)

VoIP should get priority because when bandwith is limited it needs it for the service to work. Your P2P will handle delays in packets getting through. It doesn't care. VoIP does because people do.

Since when is that my problem? If the ISP isn't providing enough bandwidth to support VOIP along with all the other traffic, they need to bone up on their infrastructure, not start arbitrarily slowing down my perfectly legitimate use of the bandwidth I pay for. What you're basically arguing for is prioritizing one set of customers over another. That's fine if they want to do that, but why the fuck should I have to pay the same rate as they do if I'm not going to receive the same service?

And it's not just about P2P. It's about traffic in general, because there is absolutely no way they would ever stop at prioritizing VOIP traffic and you know it. It'll start there, but then it will quickly evolve to other types of traffic as well. The ISPs have a particularly big hard-on for streaming video services right now, so don't for one second believe that they'll start doing some deep packet inspection to see what the hell your traffic is doing. "Oh, streaming video?! Not for long!! Should have got our cable television service, too!! What do you mean 'net neutrality'?! We ARE being neutral, there's 'too many VOIP users on right now', and they get priority!!"

As long as I pay the same amount for my internet as the guy next door, we damn well better be getting the same service, regardless of what the fuck I'm doing on it. If not, I want a fucking discount, because we're not getting the same level of service. End of story.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810107)

QoS should be per customer, not per network. The only QoS they should be allowed to do over a network is round-robin fair queuing. Classifying traffic based on anything else must be disallowed, unless it is the customer that wants it.

So if you want your SIP to have higher priority over your bulk HTTP or FTP, then it should be *you* that puts that QoS on *your* line after the fair RR queue. Otherwise, it will be the ISP that will shit all over your SIP connection because they want to sell their own VOIP solution.

QoS must be customer settings, on a webpage or similar, not ISP. ISP network after customer bottleneck should be all RR queues without classifiers.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811041)

Otherwise, it will be the ISP that will shit all over your SIP connection because they want to sell their own VOIP solution.

Doing so would violate net neutrality by prioritizing one service over another service of the same basic type. You don't have to mandate basic round-robin scheduling to avoid the problem you're describing here. All RR scheduling does is ensure that during periods of high demand, neither VoIP solution works instead of both of them working.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810143)

No. P2P traffic can be delayed, but it shouldn't be throttled. If I'm using my paid for connection and you're using your paid for connection, why should you get more bandwidth than I do?

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810171)

It should be throttled.

That's nice, now address the person several posts above yours who have their VoIP throttled during off-peak hours while speedtest sites show full bandwidth available.

I'm guessing the VoIP that they're having "problems" with is not part of the "triple play" the cable company is selling....

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810287)

I'm the Grandparent. ISPs should absolutely NOT throttle based on source/destination IP address -- I said that already. VOIP, regardless or provider, should take precedence on the network (over P2P) -- not just at the ISP layer either -- but on the entire connection on the backbone and the wires under the ocean. If there is some other type of traffic that has a bigger dependence on real-timeliness than VOIP (I doubt it), then that traffic should take precedence over VOIP.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810249)

>>>P2P traffic should take a lower priority over VOIP and other more interactive traffic.

You didn't read the ____ing summary. This IS an interactive P2P application and that's why it should not be throttled.

Also

If they laid fatter "pipes", like 100 Mbit/sec to every home, they wouldn't need to throttle anything. Throttling is only necessary when you fail to lay sufficient bandwidth to handle the load.

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810555)

>>>You didn't read the ____ing summary. This IS an interactive P2P application and that's why it should not be throttled.

The perhaps the _____ing application shouldn't be running interactive traffic over well known P2P background file-transfer port numbers.

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810931)

Throttling is only necessary when you fail to lay sufficient bandwidth to handle the load.

While true on the surface, your statement is extremely disingenuous. The companies are only going to put in the amount of bandwidth that people are going to pay for. They are in business to make money, have their employees and investors paid, etc. They could put in 100 Mbit/sec to each house - but the cost would be pretty high. Some people would be willing to pay it. Some would not. Would you? If not, shut up about it. Hint: if you want it dedicated and not "oversold" then the pricing would be similar to what a business pays for a leased T3 line or higher. Most of us just put up with oversold connections since the cost is pretty low.

Re:It should be throttled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810373)

Do you have any stats that says they need to throttle anything? Since Bell and Rogers won't release any info about their networks it seems odd to jump right into throttling is the solution, even if no one has proved it needs to happen.

Re:It should be throttled. (2)

BlueBlade (123303) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810421)

I think people are confusing arbitrary throttling with priority queues. What Rogers and Bell are doing is arbitrarily limiting the rate of p2p traffic to 25KB/s. This is just rate limiting. If, on the other hand, they would treat VOIP traffic as higher priority and process those packets first, possibly dropping the lower p2p traffic if the link is congested, that would be perfectly fine. Just don't rate limit p2p to 5% of advertised bandwidth for no good reason.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810765)

P2P traffic should take a lower priority over VOIP and other more interactive traffic. That is just common sense.

No it's not. Traffic is traffic. You want QoS, do it on YOUR end.

Re:It should be throttled. (1)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810991)

I'd like to see proof that:

1) Network usage is close to maxing out capacity.
2) ISPs would be forced to raise prices for everyone if network usage was un-throttled; otherwise they'd risk losing money.

I'm willing to bet that:

1) We are nowhere close to maxing out our bandwidth.
2) ISPs are enjoying an extremely high profit margin. There is no excuse for raising prices even if unfettered P2P access is allowed.

Canada is a 1st-world country enjoying internet prices of a 3rd-world country. We pay one of the highest rates in the world. There is no excuse for it!

Predicted outcome: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38809961)

Rogers: Sorry, our bad. We'll make go stop now *places appropriate bribe*
CRTC: Aight, s'cool. Don't do it again.
Rogers: Oh, we won't *wink*
CRTC: Hah! Right, cool. See you on the green.

Re:Predicted outcome: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810017)

We'll make go stop now? What the fuck does that mean?

Re:Predicted outcome: (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810191)

I believe it's related to limits on unlimited accounts.

Oh noes! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810083)

A hearing!

Come back to me when there is actually a penalty involved.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

Urban Nightmare (147344) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810185)

There never will be a penalty. Just a promise from Rogers that they won't do it again. Mean while back at the data center they don't actually change anything. They might have to slip a few bucks to the CRTC. Stupid corrupt government. Just like everywhere else.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38811307)

Just like everywhere else.

+1 depressing.

Pot kettle black (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810147)

When Canada signs ACTA shows that don't care at all about net neutrality.

Dropped rogers last week... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38810167)

+1 for teksavvy ... I dropped rogers the moment my contract was up.

WHAAA! (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810231)

The CRTC...

Our CRTC?

I know this comment is pointless.. but I just don't know what to say.. I'm kind of scared..

Missing Information (5, Informative)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810331)

A lot of the comments here are missing some information, so let's put it this way:

The throttling argument started a while ago when gamers detected problems with World of Warcraft on the Rogers network. In fact, Blizzard Entertainment personally spent a ridiculous amount of resources to try contact Rogers but Rogers spent the whole time insisting that their throttling was not affecting WoW, even though gamers and Blizzard had found concrete proof otherwise.

Interestingly enough, if you switch your connection to a wholesale distributors of Rogers Internet, TekSavvy, in the affected areas, the throttling problem goes away--even though it's going over the same network backbone as if you were provided a Rogers pipe directly.

Blizzard also attempted to limit the ports used for WoW back to the original game ports (3724), but this was only a temporary solution as they wanted the other connections to help with reliability.

Long story short, a WoW community member living in Canada kind of spearheaded this and has been a part of this from the absolute very beginning.

It grew to the point that the CRTC has investigated itself, and this is where we stand now.

Bell does the same (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810337)

So, can we expect CRTC to investigate Bell too?

Nationalization is the answer (1)

stefancaunter (1198951) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810501)

Rogers, and Bell, should be nationalized. They simply exist to provide net to Canadians. They have one area of expertise - self-preservation. They spend the billions of dollars they get, on lawyers to lobby the government, and on advertising, so that none of the media companies will question their business practices. The actual service they provide should get taken over by the government and provided at cost to Canadians, since it is provided by government license anyway. Rogers has bought up every sports property in Toronto, and will be limiting viewership to pay subscribers to their expensive premium sports channels (sound familiar Yankee fans?); they are allowed to get away with it by transferring a percentage of their revenue to other media companies in the form of "advertising", which means no one will call them on their ways for fear of losing ad revenue. Discussing throttling is missing the point. If the government is supporting this, they should take it over for the benefit of the citizenry, not a bunch of bastards.

Rogers, eh? (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810965)

Any relation to that jerk in Georgia?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>