|
Nomenklatura posted:So yeah apparently Bell has been systematically overstating consumption. See, what I don’t understand is that the National Research Council Canada, Institute for National Measurement Standards issues certificates validating things like the measurement accuracy of gas pumps, scales in grocery stores etc. Wouldn’t an ISP who is billing per use of a consumed good be responsible for getting them to assess their measurement technology and issue a certificate confirming its accuracy? If customers are being billed for something they are measuring, why aren’t the responsible for getting the government to approve that their measurement tool is accurate?
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Infinite posted:See, what I don’t understand is that the National Research Council Canada, Institute for National Measurement Standards issues certificates validating things like the measurement accuracy of gas pumps, scales in grocery stores etc. I've seen this brought up a few times on DSL Reports and its a very good point. Apparently the standards bodies that certify this sort of thing are essentially saying they're staying away from certifying any sort of bandwidth measuring device. It doesn't help that Bells own DPI hardware can apparently muck around with the numbers by dropping packets that are then still being counted towards the monthly total. This news about Bell overstating consumption points to exactly why it shouldn't be done without standards in place. As others have said here if Bell wants bandwidth to be treated like electricity then they should be forced to go all the way. Measurement standards, no monthly flat rate, and regulated pricing since they're a monopoly. I want a sealed glass box on a pole outside my house just like my electricity metre that no one can touch. Bell simply can't be allowed to have its cake and eat it too. I have no problem at all paying Teksavvy for every GB of my internet use as long as the prices are realistic (~$0.03-0.05 / GB) and I'm not paying $35 / month flat rate just to connect on top of that. Hell my internet bill would drop significantly even with $0.10 / GB, and I do north of 300GB every month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
8ender posted:I've seen this brought up a few times on DSL Reports and its a very good point. Apparently the standards bodies that certify this sort of thing are essentially saying they're staying away from certifying any sort of bandwidth measuring device. It doesn't help that Bells own DPI hardware can apparently muck around with the numbers by dropping packets that are then still being counted towards the monthly total. There is actually no way for Bell to meter your traffic accurately if you are a Teksavvy DSL customer. If Teksavvy is dropping bytes due to traffic overload on their final upstream connection to the internet then you'd be retransmitting from your end. If there is any further traffic management even farther upstream then even Teksavvy would be double counting your reattempts. Accurate measurement is highly architecture dependent. Can someone that knows a bit more about how these things work comment on whether there is any way to do traffic management/throttling other than just dropping packets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
We are safe for now, but no doubt this is far from over. Bell cares to much about nickel/diming everyone. I don't even care if there is a cap, the caps are just absurdly low. When you have to plan what you want to download and make priorities for using your internet, something is wrong when you are paying $60+ / month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
8ender posted:I've seen this brought up a few times on DSL Reports and its a very good point. Apparently the standards bodies that certify this sort of thing are essentially saying they're staying away from certifying any sort of bandwidth measuring device. It doesn't help that Bells own DPI hardware can apparently muck around with the numbers by dropping packets that are then still being counted towards the monthly total.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:Never mind Bell, what if a local ISP completely fucks up their measurement, or if there's a disagreement in measurement between, say, Bell and TekSavvy? TekSavvy will always measure less than bell does. This is because if Bell "shapes" some of your traffic it won't get to TekSavvy to be counted. Because of this, TekSavvy would have to UBB based on Bell's count, not theirs. Actually the highest bandwidth count will be the one you'd get with some local bandwidth counter on your own router.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
DropDeadRed posted:There is actually no way for Bell to meter your traffic accurately if you are a Teksavvy DSL customer. If Teksavvy is dropping bytes due to traffic overload on their final upstream connection to the internet then you'd be retransmitting from your end. If there is any further traffic management even farther upstream then even Teksavvy would be double counting your reattempts. Accurate measurement is highly architecture dependent. Metering can only measure the flow at 1 spot: Where the meter is (IIRC, in the case of UBB it's the local BAS unit). How it's done: Counting PPPoE packets (+size) for correctly authenticated sessions from a specific dslam port that's attributed to the POTS number. Roughly: [ISP -> Bas -> traffic mgmt -> dslam -> you] It's then billed to the ISP that 'owns' the port a 4-5 weeks after the end of the month. (eg: We get Jan's usage in the beginning of March, in time for your April invoice) Nice traffic management is doable with some protocols (in tcp: MSS munging, window size, etc). But really the only spot that can do rate limiting properly is the sending side of the connection. A major problem is that the sender has no idea what the conditions on the network are, so must always guess. (read: transmit as fast as possible and if there's packetloss detected, slow down).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
I want to meet whoever did this video and give them a big hug.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Mg6pq33Zc
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
less than three posted:I want to meet whoever did this video and give them a big hug. It's nice to see that Mel Brooks continues to have his dream realized.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=7298 Meeting has started.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Just tuned in. I've got to go out soon, hopefully I can get this poo poo on my phone. Burn up some of my mega bites.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
If this is the one with the Bell guys then I think I won't bother watching/listening for fear of raging out like the hulk at work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:If this is the one with the Bell guys then I think I won't bother watching/listening for fear of raging out like the hulk at work. There's other people too, the guy that's talking now is pretty awesome. Saying Bell is full of poo poo and they've never had congestion issues since 2002 and that they need to be dismantled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
I'll be on the skytrain when Bell and Shaw are on. If you see SKYTRAIN HOMICIDE on the news tonight, you know what happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Bell is in the 2nd panel (along with Shaw) - starting approx 4:45pm EST. So far, it looks like the only serious people are Bill Saniford (CNOC), Anthony Hémond (Union des consommateurs), and Teresa Griffin-Muir (MTS Allstream).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
I just got back from getting some stitches... glad I didn't miss Bell. Who is talking now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
Could someone please post a direct link to the stream. The android browser doesn't like their pop ups
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Could someone please post a direct link to the stream. The android browser doesn't like their pop ups Try this: http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/asx/asxgen.asx?stream=A007-A-FL-AL
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:I just got back from getting some stitches... glad I didn't miss Bell. Who is talking now? http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4944564&Language=E&Mode=1
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
I'm loving the TVIV chat on this; I can't watch at work so please keep it up 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an android player that can render the stream (I even tried rockplayer), so keep the updates coming as I furiously menu+r.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
They just asked the witnesses if they had to ask Bell one question what would it be. So i'm guessing they're going to ask Bell those questions later on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Just tuned in. For those who aren't listening, someone (a moderator?) asked everyone what their questions would be that they'd want to ask Bell. Stuff that's come up: * Why Bell is the only one doing this (UBB) worldwide * Why, if smaller ISPs are paying Bell and co. millions of dollars for access to their pipes, they're still considered "parasites" * If telcos should be split into separate entities for each product they offer (TV, internet, phone) * If government should regulate even more as opposed to I guess leaving it up to the CRTC? * Why Bell's IPTV is exempt but anyone who wants to provide something similar (small ISPs) can't * Legit proof of congestion there's more but I couldn't type it all down. Crumbletron fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Not happy about this setup. Bell and Shaw being able to speak last gives them a MAJOR advantage for swaying the committee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:* If telcos should be split into separate entities for each product they offer (TV, internet, phone) It wasn't "split based on retail divisions." It was to split the wholesale and retail into different companies. The wholesale would own the physical infrastructure and sell pipes to retail ISPs at regulated rates and equal access. Like how it works in Europe. This used to be somewhat the case with Bell Nexxia (infrastructure) and Bell Canada (retail) but they were allowed to fold into one monolith for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
less than three posted:It wasn't "split based on retail divisions." Oh, my bad. I was writing down the other stuff and didn't really catch that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:Not happy about this setup. Bell and Shaw being able to speak last gives them a MAJOR advantage for swaying the committee. It's better this way since now they'll learn and get some good questions to ask Bell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:Not happy about this setup. Bell and Shaw being able to speak last gives them a MAJOR advantage for swaying the committee. Despite the setup, this is a really good panel so far. They're definitely grinding in the fact that a cost based wholesale market would be more competative, not a retail minus
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:Stuff that's come up: Is that actually true? Because if it is... holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Scylla posted:Is that actually true? Because if it is... holy gently caress. Probably not but I have no idea. edit: hahahaha "online time bundled with our plans"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
Scylla posted:Is that actually true? Because if it is... holy gently caress. Australia is too, but in their defence they're an island and have to get everything from overseas cables. But Australia is already building a new fibre network so they can get away from UBB. Canada's sliding backwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Bell wants to talk about "fairness".
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
Enjoying the verbal diarrhea so far  They have no good arguments. They've all been destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:49
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Bell complaining about myths.. hahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
In an ideal world, this process will end with Bell getting smacked down hard. In this world, they'll probably get UBB at Retail - 20%. Fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
Oh I want to smack this fucker. We're charging UBB to our wholesale customers, but they DON'T HAVE TO charge THEIR customers UBB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
I like how they say heavy users are affecting anyone when I've never once had to deal with congestion. Ever. I don't know anyone who has, either. Anecdotal, but you'd think it would show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
Canadians use more online video than anyone else? Hahahahahaha yeah right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Seriously. I've been able to get a full 15 megabits down from Shaw for the entire two years I was with them, and the only time service went down was when some street work raised the street so that a passing tall truck cut the cable running to my house.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
This Shaw dude is saying speeds are competitive, and maybe they are, but what he omits is that we're hosed by tiny caps where most everyone else isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:57
|
|