Throttling by Internet providers

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:38 pm

Please read this

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/rogers-violating-federal-net-neutrality-rules-crtc-says

We are getting screwed by greedy multinational b***ards!!!!! If we the ordinary people would do that, we would be put in jail for fraud and they would throw the key away.

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:50 pm

Nice I hope they stick it up their...................

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:52 pm

peer-to-peer file sharing for games was shown to be the most efficient way of sharing loads more than 10 years ago. It was even in USA defense research programs that the P2P sharing protocols were among the most efficient forms of mass distribution and participation/interaction for games.
Rogers probably use the P2P excuse to throttle as the media tout the term P2P and piracy in the same line all the time.
This new report is a clear and good indicator of how rules regs and any form of denial of bandwidth on P2P essentially harms the legitimate use of the system.

it is fraudulent but they probably have some clause somewhere about usage and abuse. With abuse they can have legal rights to throttle. However as is pointed out by the case for the gaming community it is fraudulent and a refund is in order as Rogers failed to ascertain if it was abuse of the contract or legitimate usage of P2P.

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:25 pm

johnno23 wrote:

it is fraudulent but they probably have some clause somewhere about usage and abuse. With abuse they can have legal rights to throttle. However as is pointed out by the case for the gaming community it is fraudulent and a refund is in order as Rogers failed to ascertain if it was abuse of the contract or legitimate usage of P2P.

What bothers me the most, is that Rogers was given till the 3rd of Febuary and Bell said that it will end the throttling on the 1st of March. Why not right away? Why give one company, that admitted it's wrong doing (Bell), an extra month?

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:30 pm

I do not know the details but as Bell admitted the fact maybe they need a little time to update infrastructure to deliver the promise?? Judges are often a little more lenient when a company comes forward and admits it failure and does its best to comply with a ruling.
I do know that many isp's in the past were negligent and did not have the capability to deliver the promised speeds as advertised. To cover such shortfall they would throttle P2P and shaped traffic to their advantage.
Even a shortage of addresses were common. Selling more than they had.
Too many factors to know.....

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:52 pm

johnno23 wrote:

I do not know the details but as Bell admitted the fact maybe they need a little time to update infrastructure to deliver the promise?? Judges are often a little more lenient when a company comes forward and admits it failure and does its best to comply with a ruling.
I do know that many isp's in the past were negligent and did not have the capability to deliver the promised speeds as advertised. To cover such shortfall they would throttle P2P and shaped traffic to their advantage.
Even a shortage of addresses were common. Selling more than they had.
Too many factors to know.....

If you noticed it said and I quote (DELIBERATELY) and not the fact that the infrastucture was inadequate. It only proves that if you have money, you can get away with anything because if they do what there are told be the time limit, they won't have to reimburse the people for their fraud that lasted for who knows how long. Just because it's happening in my country of Canada, that doen't mean that it's not happening in yours.