The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

November 19, 2014

Canada’s big bad Telecom

bell

 

 I saw Big Telecom’s army of lobbyists, eye to eye, at a hearing last week.   

It was amazing and sickening to hear them argue that Canadians should be blocked from affordable Internet access options.  They are powerful, but we have a new crucial opportunity to fight back. Josh Tabish  OpenMedia

.

Big Telecom plans to use a crucial, rapidly-approaching hearing  to kill indie Internet services in Canada. If successful, they’ll be able to block you from companies offering affordable, next-generation Internet services, and continue to price-gouge Canadians

.

We’re facing a situation where, soon, your only choice could be between price-gouging Big Telecom giants – an unbelievable power grab for Big Telecom.

.

We know that Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for some of the worst Internet service.  And a big part this is because Big Telecom has been given gatekeeper powers before…

…a nd abused them.

https://openmedia.org/powergrab/

Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted.  We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.   So the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has to implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.” We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” “I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.” Obama said in a statement released by the White House.  President Obama’s call for “net neutrality” – the notion that any and all content should be treated equally by Internet providers – should cause the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband service like a utility as a way to protect consumers’ ability to access all content without a threat of connectivity being throttled. Us President Obama called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. His proposals also include a recommendation to mostly ban paid-for “fast-lane” access, in which a content provider refusing to pay extra would be subject to slower Internet transmission and to  reclassify consumer broadband Internet service and regulate it as if it’s a utility – like electricity and water – as many consumer advocacy groups have asked for a similar strategy to protect unfettered access.  The simple, common-sense  rules include:

  • No blocking.  If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.  That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
  • No throttling.  Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
  • Increased transparency.  The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. The  FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  • No paid prioritization.  Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee.  That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth.  An explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/can-bell-do-its-job-and-provide-me-now-their-proper-services/

.

June 23, 2014

Can Bell do it’s job and provide me now their proper services?

 BELL GREEDY (3)
.

Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted.  We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.   So the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has to implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.” We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” “I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.” Obama said in a statement released by the White House.  President Obama’s call for “net neutrality” – the notion that any and all content should be treated equally by Internet providers – should cause the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband service like a utility as a way to protect consumers’ ability to access all content without a threat of connectivity being throttled. Us President Obama called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. His proposals also include a recommendation to mostly ban paid-for “fast-lane” access, in which a content provider refusing to pay extra would be subject to slower Internet transmission and to  reclassify consumer broadband Internet service and regulate it as if it’s a utility – like electricity and water – as many consumer advocacy groups have asked for a similar strategy to protect unfettered access.  The simple, common-sense  rules include:

  • No blocking.  If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.  That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
  • No throttling.  Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
  • Increased transparency.  The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. The  FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  • No paid prioritization.  Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee.  That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth.  An explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
 Canadians can access broadband using either wire line or wireless facilities but in order to meet the high demands of cell phones, Canada’s major telecommunications firms and their subs they are  failing to deliver the capacities  as originally promised, Canada’s major telecommunications firms and their subs they are  not keeping their contractual obligations, are falsely  cutting back on internet capacity and speeds,  so all of this is still a major issue with Canada’s major telecommunications firms and their subs..  while  they advertise a certain speed but likely you next still only get half of it as they cap their downloads and speeds..
.
Sadly, as a recent survey indicates, 9-out-of-ten Canadians have no clue that their use of the Internet has been so heavily clipped by ‘market forces’: bandwidth caps, excess use charges, and restrictions on what people can and cannot do with their Internet connections in the major providers ‘acceptable user policies’.
.
 In the old dial-up days the most a user could reasonably consume would be 56K, and that only under ideal circumstances. An ISP could service approximately 28 dial-up customers with a single T1 without oversubscribing, but since few customers continually used their maximum, oversubscribing was common, sometimes as much as 20 to 1. ISPs made money and users rarely saw congestion outside of their modems.; Broadband has changed all that. Now, a single broadband customer can consume a T1 all by him or herself. So they  major telecommunications firms and their subs next lie and claim that  Broadband has been a money losing proposition for just about every ISP there is, as deployment and support costs are huge and monthly income is small while  they profess to make vast, enormous  amount of money from their cell phone usages..However, by international comparative standards, investment in Canada has been weak, inadequate.   Yes the ISPs and Cell phones firms had  mostly  lied, misadvertised the services, oversubscribed so much they falsely and  routinely do slow next down  your connection and  that’s why it can work FINE at 4:00 am when 90% of people are in bed…
.
Acanac itself thus also  caps during the business day.. even because the ISP’s falsely had originally promised quite a bit but there’s still no real full  services from them making use of what they were trying to sell to us and partly because what they were, are also now selling is far from what would be needed for any significant customer. Creating “caps” is plain crap . It is a too easy way for them.
.
 So many persons switched to cable where there is not the same  need to cap. (So to speak).  Bell’s own  recent comments about actual costs suggests that it relies on similar ranges to provide a best guess at cost per gigabyte. Yes there is no apparent link between the ‘excess usage charges’ that the dominant players are charging (i.e. from .50 cents per Gigabit (GB) to $5 per GB), and the cost of bandwidth. Experts peg the cost per gigabit as being anywhere between .01 cents and 10 cents. Even if we take the high end of this range, excess usage charges still entail an extortionate 500 to 5000 percent mark-up on costs. Canada stands alone in terms of the near universal use of ‘bandwidth caps’ and excess usage fees for Internet use. It is sadly immoral,  ludicrous  that Bell itself is is charging customers at least 10x more than the actual costs. Bell does fudge the costs numbers to support whatever self-serving claim they make.  It’s “free money” as far as they are concerned. Once established, it will be hard to remove. Especially since they can use such a scheme to constrain usage or eliminate competition.
.

Canadians are even paying more for  all communications services. Canada’s broadcast and telecom regulator has released new numbers on how much Canadians spend on communications services, revealing the total bill for the average household climbed to $191 per month last year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadians-paying-more-for-communications-services-crtc/article21130289/

.

The Federal Trade Commission says AT&T’s practice of slowing down the connection speeds of unlimited-data customers who tap excessive amounts of data is a failure to deliver on the promise of “unlimited.” As a result, the FTC on Tuesday filed a federal court complaint against AT&T, charging the wireless provider with misleading customers who signed up for an unlimited-data plan only to see their connection slowed in an industry process called “throttling. “AT&T promised its customers ‘unlimited’ data, and in many instances, it has failed to deliver on that promise,” . “The issue here is simple: ‘unlimited’ means unlimited.”  http://www.cnet.com/news/ftc-sues-at-t-for-limiting-speeds-on-unlimited-data-customers/

.

Consumers are being caught in the middle of greedy telecomm companies.. It’s the Telcomm companies who have rooked us all and laughing all the way the bank.

.

Bell  too now has made money not only by their too often unjustifiable  rates increase but also by their false extra billings. Bell is not at all known as a decent, moral company, holding to acceptable professionals standards, for that matter clearly too none of the major Canada telecommunication firms are, rather monetary greed has overtaken them all.. Bell often claimed that it was not making enough money but still became rich enough to buy CTV.. The Bell customer complaints still abound too.

.

When  I had agree to go into a contract with my internet provider at a fixed  fee, for specific services, including repairs, this is not an opportunity for the internet provider  Acanac next to  falsely, unscrupulously  try to shaft me with extra billing of 100 dollars to check my internal phone line, a fee that I  had already paid last year, and what they want me now to pay it every year too?  as it seems to be the common practice instead of rightfully offering me their past free promised  support services.

.

Now I have noticed that for years when it rains my internet services is crappy, slows down.. and recently my browsers have been very slow in loading, and I cannot even watch the news video at CTV news or at the National Post cause they cut out.. Now I have suspected the problem is squirrels, there are 6 in my back yard this week.. Note this also “ A Winnipeg man says squirrels are taking a bite out his telephone lines. James Mattson, who lives on Christie Road in south Winnipeg, said it’s been happening since last spring. “There’s something in that wire that the squirrels seem to snack on. What they’ll do is they’ll burrow into the outer core of the wire which is vinyl or plastic and then there’s bundles of wires inside and they’ll pick away at that,” he said.  James Mattson points to the telephone lines that squirrels have damaged near his home. (Jill Coubrough/CBC) Yes it’s impacting Mattson’s services. His phone, Internet. “It’s frustrating. It just keeps on happening and happening ,” he said, adding it’s happened nine times in two months. So squirrels damaging wires is a common industry problem. Deal with it.. and stop falsely lying, passing the buck as it being my problem solely.

Bell insistence that it needs proof that all of my own computer system has been first tested, falsely still treats me like me being computer illiterate.. 

Of course they have all been tested… why is it that the system slow downs only occur mostly on rainy days.. PS it does not rain in my house…

PS they still have yet to fix the problem

They claim they have to first replace the modem to see if it is the problem and then they will check the exterior phone lines.. Rubbish they replaced the modem now even 3 times and what next?? Still bad services..

.
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:00 PM
To: willm Acanac, Inc
Corporate Office
1650 Dundas Street East, Unit 204
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada L4X 2Z3
Tel  1-866-281-3538 extension 4 Monday through Friday, 9a-12m.

Subject: Re: [GQV-79396]: Can Bell do it’s job and provide me now their proper services?
 my address and telephone number is the same as the one you bill me too.. Now quit stalling and fix the problems.. are you going to replace all the modems in my apartment building now too?? cause there is 4 of us at least with the same problems too..
 .
PS
Now many of us firsthand know how lousy Bell services is and thus now Acanac/Bell is no different!!! Such as relationship is rather  ludicrous, impossible. Buyer beware..
 .
and why was the Internet system down all last weekend? after the 3rd new modem was installed too..
as usual, my internet was down again since  Friday evening – Sept 19, with no email access, no internet.. Saturday, and Sunday too…
.

The system works great on a nice sunny day, but not when it rains, at least once a week. I had installed their new Modem and after all this I still have network connectivity problems, i lose the network connection periodically..

.
Now  the clearly immoral, buck passing employees at Acanac still do  find false reasons why not to deal with my rightful complaints to them even months later. Sept 24,2014…
 .
and if you think that I am going to renew my contract with Acanac, or recommend them to others you  better think twice.
.
Again as to how to make a complaint

Step 1 – Contact a customer service representative discuss any concerns you have about your service preferably not in writing cause most of them seem not to be able to read English.

If you’re not completely satisfied with the resolution at this step,   proceed to step 2.

Step 2 – Speak with a pretentious, useless in denial supervisor
If you’re not completely satisfied with the resolution provided at this step,   proceed to step 3. 

Step 3 – Contact the pretentious  Customer Relations Centre and they will gladly  disconnect your services

 Note: You must complete the first two steps of the escalation process to have your problem supposedly to be resolved in the most efficient manner for them, not yours..

Additional Useless steps

.

A – If you were not satisfied with the resolution provided in the previous steps, you may file a complaint with the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS). The CCTS is an agency independent of the telecommunications industry. Their mandate is to resolve complaints of individual and small business retail customers about their telecommunications services.
.
If you have a complaint about your services, including local or long distance phone service, mobile phone service or Internet service, you must try to resolve it with Bell before contacting the CCTS. If you have done so and have been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution, CCTS may be able to help you, free of charge.Learn more about CCTS at 
www.ccts-cprst.ca or call toll-free at 1 888 221-1687.

.
or
.
B- Go public, posit it all on the Net.
 “Absolutely horrible customer service, they are there to take your money and not provide any support at all.   “  ”  Speed is not stable and tech support is very slow. I’ve used Acanac for more than 5 years, rarely have issue with them but once there’s one, it takes weeks to resolve it. very disappointing.”  “ STAY AWAY FROM THIS COMPANY!!!!!! This is the worse service I have ever been given in my life.” “ But the customer service is really disappointing.   “  “. Speed has been on the slow to very slow side and I have had my connection lost completely 3 times.   “   “ I used this service for almost 3 years, and wana say that Acanac service becomes the worse and worse, so I cancelled my contract with it. Reasons: 1. Low speed, 2.I didn’t have the entrance to the Internet during several hours almost every day for the last half year. 3. When I tried to reach their technical support service it was a real headache for me. I think they simply ignored my request, but they answering me immediately when I sent the cancelation notice to them. I have to state that Acanac doesn’t care about it’s customers.  “  “  -Service was good, until your service slows or or stops working and you have to reach out for help.  “  “  Finally get useless support email 16 hours after sending in my ticket suggesting I check the cable to the demarc etc etc. Issues continued for a week, customer service never improved. “ “  absolutely terrible customer service. “ “ Acanac has made my life a living hell. Telephone wait times are 45-50 minutes if it is your lucky day or no one answers. Even if someone answers you will quickly realise the guy has no clue or has no inclination to help you. Once the guy was dumb enough to ask me “why did you not send us an email?” Duh!!! I do not have internet?!!! SO PLEASE, PLEASE BE WITHOUT AN INTERNET THAN SIGNING UP WITH THIS COMPANY. THEY ARE HORRIBLE. “  “ However, when you need technical support, you could be put on the phone waiting for hours..  “   Much is promised when inquiring by their sales people, however tech support is non-existent. DO NOT USE UNLESS YOU ENJOY SUFFERING. Tech response is hidden behind a very primitive email service.   DSL connection speed is no better than dial up. “  “Internet goes down at least 4- 6 times a year. You have to call them to get good customer service. Their email and text service is the worst, specially the email response is just a copy and paste , they don’t even read what your problem is.” “  After 2 years, I have had enough – Never again, and I will make sure I tell as many people as I can to never give this company any business “  http://www.canadianisp.ca/cgi-bin/isp_comment_totals.cgi?f=Comments&ispid=52
.
Let me be clear that the assigned personnel at the CCTS are also technically incompetent, likely, clearly  another typical useless buck passing  government employee who cannot likely find  a real job in the private sector.. Months after I  had filed my original complaints, they phone back to me and ask the same useless questions am I familiar with their  own review process.. so how can I be familiar with their review process when 2 separate persons have phoned me in the last 3 months said they were reviewing my full original complaints and none have ever yet come back with a single credible fact, find, report.. these CCTS people doing the report even still now falsely seem to want me or prepare a full report myself, with a  full detailed backup so they can rubber stamp it next merely..  she wants more information from me Cause my past writings to them are too long to read she said, to review CCTS  said.. how all absurd.  Useless  CCTS personnel  just like those at Acanac. Acanac useless solution to deal with my internet problem was to uselessly replace the modem 3 times even..  
 .
CCTS do note that my original contract with ACANAC paid for my MasterCard as well as the terms of agreements are all there with Acanac and so also also all of my last up letters of complaints to accent about their poor services and their poor Reponses. The undeniable obvious evidence  that my internet speed has been capped is there too. 
.
 see

May 21, 2009

Bell throttles internet speeds

 bell-service (5)

WHAT SPIN DOCTOR BELL ALSO DOES NOT TELL ALL OF IT’S CUSTOMERS .  Canadian cell phone carrier, DAVE Wireless, announced  that it had signed a licensing agreement with Bell Mobility, allowing it to attach wireless transmitters to Bell’s existing cell sites. What most citizens do not realize is that wireless phones are digital based too, operating on Bell’s internet services too 

.

BELL HAS TO CAP IT’S INTERNET CUSTOMERS’ USAGES, DOWNLOADS OFTEN TOO, TO MAKE THE ROOM FOR THE WIRELESS PHONES AS WELL . BELL REALLY DOES NOT HAVE EXISTING ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR BOTH, NOT EVEN FOR THE HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICES IN ALL AREAS OF CANADA. IT IS CLEARLY TOO CHEAP TO SPEND CAPITAL TO DO THIS ?https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/bittorrent-p2p-sites/

.
Do always  check your actual ISP speed http://www.acanac.ca/speedtest/  check for the blatant theft-corruption on a daily basis and ask them to fix it immediately as well..
 .
We all should be really concerned now whether Internet service providers  such as Bell, Verizon are misleading customers with slower-than-advertised speeds.  Your  Internet provider could be mostly  short-changing  You, consumers by charging them for faster broadband speeds and failing to deliver the speeds being advertised. Now  each company should  provide copies of all the disclosures they have made to customers, as well as copies of any testing they may have done to study their Internet speeds. We deserve the Internet speeds they pay for. But, it turns out, too  many of us may be paying for one thing, and getting another. It seems they all still lie, are guilty of false, misleading advertisements. Most  broadband providers claiming to offer super-fast Internet connections may be rather delivering service that is slower than advertised.  It is immoral  that the broadband speeds that you pay for are so unsubstantiated  in reality. 
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2015/10/26/your-internet-provider-could-be-short-changing-you/
.

Small ISPs fight ruling that let Bell throttle internet speeds CBC.ca –    CBC News -Small internet service providers are challenging a ruling that gave Bell Canada Inc. the green light to selectively slow down internet speeds for some of their customers.

Bell_Logo_1

Canada’s internet regulator, the Canada Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, didn’t fully understand the technology involved and made errors in the November 2008 judgment, said an application filed with the commission Thursday by Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), along with the Consumers’ Association of Canada and a number of other groups,

.

“all people such as myself with a Bell telephone line but use a 3rd party ISP for high-speed Internet sue Bell in a class action lawsuit! This is simply based on contract law, I have a Bell home phone line that I pay strictly for local calling  . When I switched from dial-up Internet access many years ago to high-speed, I went with a 3rd party ISP,  and my ISP contacted Bell on my behalf to get my local line connected to Bell’s high-speed line. So then in my next Bell bill under monthly services a new item appeared it said: 1 High Speed-up to 4.0 Mbps and there was no extra charge for this service!” .. Just because Bell connects its residential customers to its high-speed service so that these consumers may use 3rd party ISP resellers of Bell’s capacity; does that give Bell any legal right to sift through this private data, set parameters of access to Internet speed based on the type of data being sent/received and set predetermined time frames in order to restrict the flow of data?”

.

Therefore I have a contract with Bell and I can sue them for interfering with my phone line. But why do we need a government and pay taxes if we have to fend ourselves? 

.

Call for class action against Bell Canada  p2pnet.net – ‎May 22, 2009‎  p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- A group of Canadian companies has come together because its members are seriously concerned about the way Bell Canada, with the tacit approval of the Stephen Harper government, is trampling roughshod, …

 .

Canadian Consumer Groups Slam CRTC  BroadbandReports.com – Last year, Bell Canada started throttling wholesale customers without telling them, ensuring that smaller ISPs couldn’t offer an un-throttled connection to consumers that was better than Bell’s throttled Sympatico service.  .

 .

ISPs seek to overturn decision on Bell traffic throttling  Telecompaper – ‎May 22, 2009‎ The Canadian Association of Internet Providers, Consumers’ Association of Canada and other groups have filed an application with the telecommunications regulator CRTC to reconsider a November 2008 decision concerning Bell Canada’s throttling of …

.  

 >>Bell Canada, with the tacit approval of the Stephen Harper government, is trampling roughshod, over its own customers, including smaller ISPs.  http://www.p2pnet.net/story/22148/comment-page-1#comment-974510
 .

TO BE FAIR THE LIBERALS ALSO GO ALONG WITH BAD BELL. I had spoken and asked directly Quebec’s finance minister Monique Forget to deal with bad Bell but she was hesitant to and I wondered why till I had next read  that the new head of the Quebec’s pension fund is Michael Sabia, former head of Bell Canada Enterprises, who took over in March of this year.

..

  

Conference Board says 3 reports plagiarized  Toronto Star –    The Conference Board of Canada, which bills itself as “the foremost, independent, not-for-profit applied research organization” in the country, has recalled three reports following allegations some of the material was plagiarized.

.

Copyright Report Caught Copying Raise the Hammer

all 96 news articles »

   0BELL

BELL EXECUTIVES HAVE BEEN  TOO CHEAP, AND STINGY TO SPEND THE NECESSARY MONEY TO DO THE MUCH NEEDY UPDATES TO BELL’S INTERNET WHICH DO LACK FULL CAPACITIES TO SERVICE ALL THE PRESENT CUSTOMERS, NEVER MIND ALL THE FUTURE ONES, SO THEY HAVE TO THROTTLE THEIR SERVICES  https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/why-many-businesses-fail/

   bell-internet isp

The CRTC application alleges multiple errors of fact and law in the decision and points specifically to the CRTC’s lack of a full understanding of the issues raised in the proceeding. CAIP argues that the CRTC specifically launched the larger net neutrality proceeding this summer in order to gain that fuller understanding, but argues that:
.

A broader proceeding in order to understand the complex issues raised in the CAIP application is a perfectly acceptable and responsible means of developing a thoughtful policy approach and decision on network management. What is entirely unfair and unacceptable, however, is the fact that the Commission rendered Decision 2008-108 without the benefit of a comprehensive understanding of the factual, legal and policy issues at play. In particular, if the Commission did not believe that it had an adequate evidentiary record or did not have a full understanding of the factual and legal issues raised by Bell’s throttling of wholesale GAS services to be able to determine in an unqualified and final manner the issues raised in the CAIP proceeding, then it was procedurally unfair for the Commission to have rendered a decision on CAIP’s application.

Moreover, CAIP highlights a concern raised by many in the net neutrality world – that the CRTC has already decided many of the bigger issues even before the July hearings begin. CAIP notes that:

in effect, the Commission has pre-judged certain factual and legal issues raised in the PN 2008-19 proceeding, thereby narrowing the scope of the Commission’s decision in the PN 2008-19 proceeding even before it is made. As long as Decision 2008-108 stands, the perception that the Commission has pre-judged the outcome of PN 2008-19 on the key issue of the legality of CAP-based throttling pursuant to subsection 27(2) and section 36 of the Act will persist.

The application continues with specific examples of error in fact and law. These include errors in fact on P2P activities and the use of deep packet inspection as well as numerous errors in law, particularly in the way the CRTC interpreted sections 27(2) and 36 of the Telecommunications Act. The CAIP application comes as a surprise given that most of the attention had moved to this summer’s net neutrality hearings and places the CRTC on the defensive just weeks before those hearings are scheduled to take place.

.

CRTC filing lodged by a coalition of consumer groups and indie telecommunication groups who’ve been adversely hit by the Bell Canada’s DPI and throttling practices.And they’re standing up for your rights, your privacy, and their right to function in a business environment that hasn’t been competitively crippled and hijacked by vested corporate interests.

The coalition comprises

  • The Consumers’ Association of Canada,
  • Canada Without Poverty
  • Council of PIAC
  • Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP),
  • Acanac Inc.,
  • Accelerated Connections Inc.,
  • Cybersurf Corp.,
  • eagle.ca,
  • Execulink Telecom Inc.,
  • Managed Network Systems Inc. (MSNi),
  • Skyway West Business Internet Services,
  • Start Communications,
  • TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
  • Vianet Internet Solutions,
  • Yak Communications Inc.

Their filing, which highlights many oversights, errors, rights, privacy issues, and competitive disputes not taken into consideration during the CRTC’s ruling, hasn’t yet been posted on the CRTC website, but it can be found here and here, and followed here.

Bell_Logo_5

SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REVIEW AND VARIANCE 
15. Section 62 of the Act states:
62. The Commission may, on application or on its own motion, review and rescind or vary any decision made by it or re-hear a matter before rendering a decision.

16. In Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98‐6, Guidelines for review and vary applications, 20 March 1998 (“PN 98‐6”), the Commission stated that in order for the Commission to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 62 of the Act, an applicant must demonstrate that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the original decision. The Commission then went on to state that substantial doubt as to the correctness of the original decision may arise, for example, due to

(i) An error in law or in fact;
(ii) A fundamental change in circumstances or facts since the decision;
(iii) A failure to consider a basic principle which had been raised in the original proceeding; or
(iv) A new principle which has arisen as a result of the decision.

17. The Applicants submit that there is substantial doubt as to the original correctness of Decision 2008‐108 as a result of the following specific errors of fact and law. The
Commission

(a) Erred in fact in deciding that P2P transmissions take up as much bandwidth as possible and are unique, among all other types of transmissions, in doing so;(b) Erred in fact in stating that in order to identify the application or protocol of telecommunications, Bell need only examine the “header information of the packet;”9
(c) In relation to Bell’s GAS tariff and sections 24 and 25 of the Act, erred in fact and in law
(i) in allowing Bell to apply a different standard relating to fair and proportionate use of its network by the end‐customers of ISPs than the standard that it has applied historically to both ILECs and to the cable companies;
(ii) in considering that Bell’s use of DPI to inspect and treat packets in P2P transmissions differently does not violate the GAS tariff, which defines GAS as a PPPoE or Layer 2 service; and
(iii) in concluding that at the time of the Decision, Bell had no other “practical option that is technologically and economically suitable” but to throttle GAS;
(d) In relation to CAIP’s subsection 27(2) grounds for relief,
(i) Erred in law by narrowing the scope of the proceeding without notice to the parties, such that CAIP’s section 27 arguments were only considered in relation to Bell’s treatment of its own retail Internet access customers;
(ii) Erred in law in failing to consider whether Bell was subjecting GAS to different treatment as compared to all other high‐bandwidth services that Bell offers to itself or to others using the same “shared” network referred to by Bell and the Commission;
(iii) Applied the wrong legal test in determining that subsection 27(2) comports an element of subjective intention or bad faith;
(iv) Erred in law and in fact in considering that the breaches of section 27(2) were justified given that
A. there is no evidence that P2P applications represent a threat to the integrity of wireline ILEC networks;
B. Bell’s throttling measure is at once under inclusive in that it only affects P2P applications and not other bandwidth intensive applications and overinclusive in that it affects both heavy and “non‐heavy” users equally; and
C. Bell’s throttling measure is not proportional and minimally intrusive since there were many other options for Bell to achieve its objective, whether it be the objective of relieving congestion or of controlling the usage of heavy users;
(e) In relation to section 36 of the Act, erred in law and in fact by concluding that:
(i) Bell’s traffic shaping measures “does not involve blocking any telecommunications”;
(ii) file‐sharing applications only involve transmissions of downloadable “files” which require “time for the file to be transmitted before an enduser can access it.”;
(iii) Bell is not controlling the content of the telecommunications that it carries for the public;
(iv) Bell is not influencing the meaning of the telecommunications that it carries for the public; and that
(v) Bell is not influencing the purpose of the telecommunications that it carries for the public;
(f) Did not comply with the requirements of the Policy Direction to state which policy objectives were advanced by its decision and did not give sufficient justification for its decision thereunder;
(g) Erred in law in failing to give due consideration to
(i) The freedom of expression of content providers, Canadian Internet users, and independent ISPs;
(ii) The Canadian telecommunications policy objective of protecting the privacy of telecommunications set out at paragraph 7(i) of the Act;10 and
(iii) The Canadian telecommunications policy objective of promoting maximum reliance on market forces and ensuring efficient and effective regulation as set out at paragraph 7(f) of the Act.

18. In addition to the foregoing errors, there is at least one changed circumstance relating to the options available to Bell to relieve congestion in its network that calls into doubt both the original and continuing correctness of Decision 2008‐108. In particular, as described in Section IV below, it would appear that Bell has standardised Ethernet Layer 2 switches throughout its network in order to relieve congestion in certain areas of its network. This development calls into question the continuing necessity of Bell’s network‐wide throttling of P2P applications as well as raising the issue (if only in the alternative) of whether Bell’s throttling of P2P applications should be time‐limited or subject to any other restrictions.

The filing goes into great detail on each of these points.

I haven’t had the time to really get into it yet, but I will — and I noticed all sorts of facts the CRTC didn’t address, as did users on DSLreports.

For example, mlerner (http://www.dslreports.com/profile/248514) spotted this gem »»»

44. However, the fact that Bell looks at Layer 7 information in order to determine the application software running on the CPE misses a more fundamental point that relates to GAS specifically. GAS is a PPPoE or Layer 2 (Data Layer) service according to Bell GT Item 5410. As such, anything above Layer 2 (Layers 3‐7) constitutes the PPPoE “payload” under GAS. While Bell must possess PPPoE header information in order to provide GAS, there is no need for Bell to examine even the source and destination IP address information of GAS traffic in order to deliver the tariffed service.

This raises a privacy issue when Bell is looking at point of origin and destination, as well as packet payload on customers that aren’t even theirs.

Makes me wonder if the Privacy Commissioner will be dragged into this, as I believe she should be.

The throttle and DPI fight is not over.

Definitely stay tuned…  http://www.p2pnet.net/story/22033

The new age- The Internet and the word “free” are so entwined when it comes to getting news and information online from mainstream media outlets that consumers aren’t going to want to give it up, Anyone born in the 1980s the computer age now  doesn’t expect to pay for news. Advertisers have to pay for it.

   About sowing and reaping.. “Recession fallout hits BCE, Telus wireless results BCE ‘NOT IMMUNE’ TO ECONOMY “We’re not immune,” BCE Chief Executive George Cope said of the economy during a conference call with analysts. The company’s shares fell 62 Canadian cents to C$25.45.The company’s quarterly revenue edged lower to C$4.34 billion ($3.7 billion) from C$4.36 billion a year earlier. At Telus, revenue crawled higher to C$2.37 billion from C$2.35 billion.”  Reuters  –  More miss information, lying corporate spin   and what about news editors, news reporters using their own brain, research rather? doing the honest reporting?   –all 96 articles »

Bell has no one but itself to blame for it’s own  downfall,  40 percent of it’s own customers have complained about big bad Bell abusing them, lying to them, not keeping their contract agreement already. I have often told Bell  in writing that would all  happen now too on the net as well..
 
Bell like Loblow , Royal LePage merely reaps too what it sows.. it next fails to get repeat customers and much needed referrals as a direct result too..
 
computer-HACK 
 
 
 
DO SEE ALSO 
.
..  why Bell is always a LOSER. It is Always looking for some way to SOCK IT TO  their customers over  and over again and find another excuse to make the customers pay more.
“The present  future development  of iPhone includes multimedia messaging (MMS),  and adding  data tethering to the iPhone, which will turn the device into a wireless modem to connect laptops to 3G networks.
 .
“MMS and Tethering – two features that have been readily available on many smartphones for years – are finally making their way to the iPhone. But if you’re in the United States, you won’t be able to use them for at least a few months. Because AT&T, the network with an exclusive lock on the iPhone in the US, couldn’t get it together in time to support them for the iPhone 3.0 software launch. At launch on June 17th, MMS is going to be supported by 29 carriers, and tethering will be supported by 22 of them. So when can we finally expect these stateside? MMS is apparently coming “later this summer”. And tethering? A much more nebulous (and ominous) “later”.
.

This is ridiculous, plain and simple. AT&T has almost certainly known about Apple’s plans for many months if not years, and was probably involved in determining when these features would be launching in the first place.

.

AT&T has made it clear many times that it simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to support the millions of new iPhone users that are using their “unlimited” data plans far more than they would on other phones.

.

Apparently AT&T won’t support the long-awaited addition of MMS upon the iPhone 3GS’s launch. Boy Genius Report explains the situation thusly, [T]he reason it’s not good to go right away is because AT&T has to manually remove all the “Opt Out MMS codes” on each account. Basically, if we were to summarize this, and we’re going out a little bit of a limb, remove the Opt Out MMS code, and MMS will work with the final OS 3.0 build right away. We’ve also just heard that tethering will be 100% locked out at launch, but AT&T’s in the process of putting together a $70/mo unlimited data and tethering plan. SMS and MMS will not be included in that plan, we’re told.”  http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/08/att-underscores-how-badly-it-sucks/

.

Sadly AT&T for a start is not the only carrier that doesn’t have presently  adequate  existing bandwidth to support all of their customers, iPhone users  using  an “unlimited” data plan  and that would now include Rogers and Bell? who are clearly already capping their existing customers and others to over come this serious shortcoming,   and in spite of what they do all  promise now they might have in the future I really rightfully do not believe them.

do see also

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.