The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

April 26, 2008


Why does Bell lie about what it does, wants to do still?  
 Me I have the decency to first complain to BellSympatico , to tell them honestly, openly what I am going to post on my site next about them too, at least they were pre-warned by me.
Firstly I merely have substantiated here how many others now do also like me feel about Sympatico Bell’s secrecy, under handiness, definite internet contract violations, lies… I support in detail  my side of the truth, story too.  I am not alone who complains to Bell often and loudly  and still what surprises me is that Bell wrongfully thought it could get away with al of their bad acts to me and others in the first place..Do notice that no one from Bell has send me a copy of my last six months billing or proof I had requested any contract changes, new equipment as well, and no one had phoned me back this week from Bell again now too.. now why was that? They had lied and had promised they would.  So it is no wonder so many people today are really rightfully upset at Bell, not just me.Bell getting me more upset is the wrong thing for Bell to try to do, I just get louder, do write thousands more letters to news editors, electric officials still too..  They Bell should by now know I too can escalate the matters and not back down.. Bell still does needs to adequately deal wiht me, reply to me before it gets worse for them and they lose thousands more customers..

I paid Bell for unlisted, unlimited download and they did not supply it to me, Bell did not even have the honestly to originally tell the truth to all and to beforehand say that they were capping it now as well.. Bell they done it first in secret, and were thus wrongfully violating my personal privacy in the process too.   Talking about Bell’s balance reply Bell they have only one reply basically and It is take it or leave it.. I have another.. I rightfully object!   but me I also do fight back in writing and let the whole world know how the snakes in the dark operate in the darkness, and the darkness hates the light to be revealed upon it still too. Bell loses many many customers now too as a result of these exposures of how Bell operates.



Even my neighbors when they read the newspaper can see the positive influence that I have had on the elected officials, news media in regard to Bell’s undeniable bad services, bad acts and my neighbours they all agree with me on this too… I am doing a good thing exposing Bell.  Bell should not fight with someone retired like me, for I have plenty of free time , and a desire to pursue it with everyone even more next too, and it will be costly for Bell too.  I told them beforehand in writing the war with Bell will escalate NEXT TOO and it did, it has, they have a lot more to lose than I have in all of this too…  I do really look like a good guy in many people’s eyes standing up against the Bell bullies and liars.

Beyond the shadow of the doubt the articles posted here next by me showed that Bell ‘s Internet  capping reasons were false, unsubstantiated, and so I still rightfully object to Bell capping my net to all too.

 Why does Bell lie about what it does, wants to do still?   

  2 days respond time from Bell? is a joke.. I have waited weeks just to try to get an official copy of my Bell Sympatico billings this year..

Ironically the real basic Hog is greedy Bell firstly too who is trying to make loads more money from it’s internet services by playing dirty and changing the contract rules without my approval

Bell has mislead us all as to why Bell has been Throttling the internet.
” 20% of traffic comes from P2P applications
During peak-load times, 70% of subscribers use http.
Only 20% are using P2P
Http still makes up most of the total traffic, of which 45% is traditional web content including text and images.
Streaming video and audio content from services such as YouTube account for nearly 50% of the http traffic.
AStreaming content such as TV shows and YouTube is on the rise.
This clearly shows the “bandwidth hogs” are, in fact, ordinary, average http users during peak time, and NOT Bell’s fictitious 5% of “heavy” P2P users” who suck up around 50% of the total available bandwidth.
Bell also tries to say only 5% of surfers use P2P or even know what P2P is.
These data do not support the claims made by Bell, which admits its data were collected in April over a year ago —- and in another country.
So in effect, what Bell has done is to pick a protocol and application they decided were expendable, with no supporting current evidence or data on their network, also unilaterally deciding for their wholesale customers (who are also their competition) what applications they’ll block.
This should be a warning for everyone to wake up to the fact Bell is throttling anything and everything it pleases, and since streaming video (YouTube and TV shows) is high on the list, this will surely be next on their list of items to be throttled.
Since it’s now obvious that, contrary to Bell’s claims, P2P isn’t the real target (since its not really that heavy on the network during peak time), what’s the real reason for the company to install and apply technology able to open and inspect packets? (And, by the way, it can also retain logs.)
Is it to delay upgrades?
Is it to peak into people’s private packets?
Is it to gather data on users and the users of the competition?
Is it because P2P is now mainstream (20% of the users, not 5% as proclaimed by Bell) and growing by 100% yearly?
Is it a way for Bell to lower their peak-time bandwidth costs and at the same time prevent its own users from jumping ship to the competition?
But hey! Don’t take my word for it; take Arbor Networks, the maker of the throttling machines Bell could be using!
Meanwhile, check out CAIP’s second submission to the CRTC.

In secret, and unofficially “Bell commenced the throttling of competitor traffic at precisely the same time that it decided to eliminate the last vestiges of its retail unlimited Internet usage plans. And that was obvious to me and I had told everyone that too.. that Bell has not been open and transparent in how they have abused their customers. Unacceptable

“Bell’s own customers, Canadian Net users and smaller ISPs have become allies in a bid to force telco giant Bell Canada to stop using P2P file sharers as an excuse to shackle bandwidth. Called traffic shaping or throttling, the corporate ‘management’ action not only severely restricts services users have paid for, it also impacts net neutrality and prevents online freedom of speech, say critics. Leading the attack against the practice has been CAIP (Canadian Association of Internet Providers) representing more than 50 independent internet service providers who, not at all incidentally, are also Bell clients. One of them, TekSavvy, based in Ontario, has organised a rally on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to force politicians to pay attention to customer needs. The date set for the rally is May 15 “This will be for net neutrality, which will bring the Bell topic in, but will have a much larger goal,” company CEO Rocky Gaudrault “Net neutrality hits a public nerve. But it’s not really a stand-alone. There are many overlapping issues here. I’ve mentioned privacy, choice and ISP transparency, but there are many other aspects.” In the view of CAIP, Bell has failed to establish a rational connection between its throttling practices to any legitimate or pressing objective of any kind and the corresponding effect of these practices on competitors and their end-user customers has been at once targeted and overly broad. By Bell’s own admission: Bell is deliberately reducing the speed and throughput of a local access service (i.e., GAS) that is used by interconnected competitors to provide a wide variety of retail telecommunications services to their end-user customers, including remote LAN access services, voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services, virtual private network (“VPN”) services, streaming audio and video services, data exchange services, and high speed Internet access services. Bell has engaged in these throttling practices without providing a shred of evidence that its network is congested or that its GAS customers are the specific cause of any alleged network congestion. Bell commenced these throttling practices without providing competitors with any notice of its intention to throttle or “shape” their traffic and without providing competitors with any opportunity to test the impact of Bell’s traffic shaping technology on the services that competitors deliver to their end-user customers.

Bell’s campaign of throttling competitors traffic was initiated at precisely the same time that it decided to stop offering an unlimited usage plan to its retail Internet customers – a decision, which Bell knew might cause its retail customers to migrate to the unlimited usage plans of competitors.

There is also uncontradicted evidence, as particularized at paragraph 56 herein, that strongly suggests that the reasons behind Bell’s decision to throttle its competitors’ GAS traffic have little to do with Bell’s unsubstantiated claims of “network congestion” and more to do with a desire to lessen competition in retail telecommunications markets. There are far too many “coincidences” between the timing of the initiation of Bell’s throttling practices and the timing of a number of other events in order to conclude otherwise.”

“Failure to Provide Notice of Network Changes CAIP notes that Bell has chosen not to directly address in its Answer its failure to “notify” its competitors of its intention to implement network modifications that could affect the operation of other carriers’ networks. Bell. It has made changes to its network without notification. No information was provided to its wholesale customers as to exactly what changes Bell has made. CAIP’s members have been subjected to unexpected network disruptions, their network users were affected without notice, and Bell failed to provide them with the opportunity to examine the proposed change, conduct joint testing and take action as required before the change came into effect.16
In addition, the reality of Bell’s “willingness to work” is far less encouraging. Since March 14, 2008, the only notice that Bell appears to have issued to its wholesale customers in relation to its throttling measures is a two-page document entitled “DSL Traffic Management – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)”. By way of response, CAIP can advise that this “FAQ” document was not received by all of its members who subscribe to Bell’s GAS. Moreover, the document was sent out more than one month after Bell commenced the throttling of its competitors’ traffic which is hardly responsive given Bell’s duties to provide advance notice of network changes to its competitors. Perhaps more troubling, however, is the fact that Bell’s FAQ document is almost entirely bereft of any technical details regarding its traffic shaping equipment and network protocols. Moreover, when asked to provide this type of information, Bell has been extremely evasive and short on technical details. This is not acceptable state of affairs.

Bell’s Actions Constitute an Undue and Unreasonable Preference Granted to Itself and a Disadvantage Applied to Competitors In addition, Bell suggests that the following alleged facts somehow minimise the illegality or deleterious effect of its traffic-shaping measures: throttling is “applied only during peak usage periods” and “only applied to P2P file sharing applications”;

“it has not been presented with any evidence that its Internet traffic management solution is having any impact on VPN or VoIP traffic.22

New media content available on the Internet is often delivered using P2P protocol. So regardless of whether it is streaming content or not, it is clear that new media undertakings are seriously affected by Bell’s decision to target all content delivered using P2P protocols.

Bell commenced the throttling of competitor traffic at precisely the same time that it decided to eliminate the last vestiges of its retail unlimited Internet usage plans. 30 Bell’s 2007 Annual Report indicates that it knew that the discontinuance of such plans might cause its retail customers to migrate to the unlimited usage plans of its competitors.31

Bell commenced the throttling of competitor traffic at the very same time that it launched a massive mailing campaign to its home phone customers that is intended to promote its retail Internet access service, a service that is described by Bell’s billing insert as offering “super fast access speeds” of up to 16 Mbps. This mailing campaign also states that Bell’s Internet services provide a “Direct, uncongested gateway to the Internet” over a “brand new, next-generation fibre optic network”.32 Bell does not offer a 16 Mbps speed to competitors under either its GAS or HSA tariffs. The fastest speed available to competitors under these tariffs is 6 Mbps.33 .

This aspect of Bell’s wholesale throttling activities gives rise a serious issue that Bell’s actions violate the privacy of the communications of its wholesale customers as well as that of their end-user customers.


Bell does not deny that reduced data transfer speeds could harm its competitors.

The fact that there is no legitimate and pressing basis for Bell’s throttling actions and therefore, no overriding interest, either private or public, that favours withholding the interim relief requested by CAIP;

Even if there was any evidence of a legitimate and pressing basis for Bell’s throttling actions, their effect is at once so overbroad, discriminatorily and it outweighs any inconvenience to Bell of returning to the status quo ex ante; and

To the contrary, an overriding public interest in:

(iii)The protection of privacy;

(iv)The inviolability and neutrality of telecommunications common carriage;

(v)Maintaining respect for the enactments of Parliament;

(vi)Enforcing the Commission’s tariffs and policies, such as the Commission’s Notification of Network Changes policies strongly tilts the balance of convenience in favour of granting the interim relief sought by CAIP.

As discussed above, there is no legitimate, competitively neutral basis for the measures undertaken by Bell. Rather, at this point, the evidence points to the conclusion that the most rational explanation for the reasons that Bell undertook the throttling measures are purely commercial and relate directly to a desire to decrease competition in the downstream retail market.

The Public Interest Would be Protected by a Return to the Status Quo Ex Ante  




Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: