The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

September 21, 2009

Bit Torrent – P2P sites -network traffic -Network Neutrality

today2
 
 
 Bell ITSELF NOW WANTS TO MAKE MORE MONEY SELLING MOVIES DIRECTLY TO YOU ON THE NET SO IT READILY WANTS TO ACT LIKE BIG BROTHER POLICE TOO AND FORBID YOU TO DOWNLOAD ANY SUPPOSEDLY PIRATED MATERIAL.. AND WHAT ELSE WILL IT TRY TO CENSOR NOW TOO? BELL THE BIG DIABOLICAL POLICE STATE NOW TOO?
 
 
NOW FOR A START TOO LET MY GOVERNMENT OF CANADA RIGHTFULLY LOOK FIRST FULLY AFTER THE CITIZENS BEST INTEREST , CONSUMER PROTECTION AND NOT THE INTEREST OF BIG BUSINESS MAINLY TOO.
 
“Canadian officials are taking part in negotiations for a top-secret copyright treaty that could see families barred from the Internet for a year if someone in the household is suspected of illegal downloads.Under the worldwide rules of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Internet service providers such as Bell and Rogers in Canada would be required to become copyright police and filter out pirated material from their networks, hand over the identities of customers believed to be infringing copyrights and restrict the use of identity-blocking software.ACTA would employ a three-strikes policy. People believed to be regularly downloading copy-protected material, such as movie and music files, could have their Internet connection severed for up to 12 months and forced to pay a fine. “It’s incredibly disproportionate. Three unproven allegations of infringement will cut off Internet service for a year for an entire family,” said Michael Geist, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.”It’s not based on the individual user, it’s based on the connection,” added Geist, who said he has received details of the proposals from people closely associated with drafting the agreement. The treaty, which is being pushed forward by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, closely mimics the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that governs copyright issues in the U.S. It puts in place measures that would make it illegal for consumers to make backup copies of DVDs or other media with built-in copy-protection technology. Other provisions could make information on iPods, laptops and other personal electronic devices illegal and force travellers to prove to border officials that the content on such devices was acquired through legal channels.  http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Canada+talks+over+copyright+laws+with+bite/2189494/story.html
 
 
 
 
“All of the computer internet P2P growth we’ve seen over the past several months is in the torrent community,” Free Bit Torrent usage still  soars as Bell, Videotron and others have  put caps  against P2P USERS, sites.  Both the music, movie industries  and many of the big Internet Service Providers now all do see P2P file-sharing of movies, films, TV shows,  pictures, wallpapers, music, books, magazines,  games, software, other, etc., as a very real threat to their maximum profitability. Greed and profitability clearly has overtaken them.. Bit Torrent TV Documentaries, History, TV shows themselves are increasingly becoming popular world wide , and are being bundled into multi-episode packs. “Many People are migrating towards three packs, six packs, and even whole seasons,” Bell and Videotron themselves now are in a false conflict of customer interest cause they rent movies, games too.
 
All of the  governments should now step in given the justified rising anti-competitive, anti monopoly sentiment nation wide, curbing their monopoly sectors from grabbing, gouging  exorbitant profits from the customers,  and preventing these monopoly sectors from taking advantage of their market position to overcharge consumers.  Encouraging real, valid competition, for example, is the ultimate way of breaking up monopolies. But the government some times instead  sticks to price controls or no controls to tackle the monopoly problem. The governments can deal  with monopolized interests only if it gathers adequate political will.  
   
Broadband campaign spurs 20,000 letters to MPs. A public relations and lobbying campaign launched by small internet providers for government intervention in the broadband market has spurred more than 20,000 letters to MPs, the companies say. The Coalition for Competitive Broadband, a group led by Winnipeg-based MTS Allstream and made up of more than 50 small internet providers and the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, launched a website two weeks ago to muster support against several recent regulatory decisions. I think its time it [the Internet] became a public utility like power and water.” A campaign for government intervention in the telecom market as well… I think most of us is sick of “paying among the highest cellphone bills in the developed world”.  CRTC is not protecting regular Canadian’s interest. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/24/broadband-competition-coalition-numbers.html Competitive Broadband website
 
The United States is moving toward enshrining a free and open internet with six proposed rules designed to prevent telecommunications companies from interfering with how people use their connections. The rules are needed because American internet providers have interfered with internet traffic on a number of occasions and they must be prevented from doing so in the future, said Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski.   Long overdue in Canada. The Hydro company does not check what brand of appliance I plug in to determine my power consumption.  Telecoms should not be “packet sniffing” to determine my connection speed. Canada needs some net-neutrality guarantees as well to prevent the telecom oligopoly from their dirty tricks. The CRTC needs to start working for us instead of the big companies. They should also put in some guidelines on acceptable marketing strategies for ISP’s. The “up to 10 Mbps” is really misleading when all you ever see is 500 Kbps. It should be based on the average expected speed and we should be getting a credit if we do not get those speeds. It takes American law to show our government what Canadian people have been asking for years.   http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/21/fcc-formal-net-neutrality-rules-crtc.html
 
The peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic is a dominant type of Internet traffic today, consuming up to 30% of all Internet backbone traffic. P2P applications consume a lion share of ISP network capacity, consuming the ISP  bandwidth . The Pirate Bay bragged that after a Danish ISP was forced to block its subscribers from accessing the Swedish site, traffic spiked. TPB attributes the increase from the publicity surrounding the ISP’s action. Those new to P2P seem to be jumping on the BitTorrent bandwagon.  “All of the growth is in the torrent community, which maybe suggests that the audience for traditional P2P is mature.”
 
Consumers are readily able to access freely any of the many  torrent sites day and night, and totally freely  download at will now too, no  initial or ongoing costs too, even sites like the all free   TV Team, EZTV,  BTARENA TorrentBoxTorrent Reactor,  Torrent Hound,  Summo ,  Your Bittorrent Pirate Bay, http://mightynova.com/ etc..  But you’ll need a free  BitTorrent client like uTorrent before .torrent links on any site would work. Great free torrent download software now has made it all possible.. the software like the free µTorrent which is the world’s most popular BitTorrent client. Most of the features present in other BitTorrent clients are present in µTorrent, including bandwidth prioritization, scheduling, RSS auto-downloading and Mainline DHT (compatible with BitComet).
 
Recently  a press release was issued   suggested something quite startling — HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol, aka Web traffic) had for the first time in four years overtaken P2P. The   WWW web surfing is outpacing file sharing. Ironically, this growing is due the popularization of tools that allow users to share the files via www, tools like YouTube and Flicker. However a new article from Slyck disputes this, and contends that P2P remains the bandwidth heavyweight.   P2P (which is a class of applications, not a specific protocol) was created to deal with huge files)    Another  report based on data from   US and European ISPs claims P2P traffic has mostly dropped to around 20% of all Internet traffic,   down from the 40% two years ago  likely due to continued, widespread ISP P2P capping and MOST CONSUMER HAVE NOT BEEN HAPPY ABOUT THIS NOW AT ALL TOO. .
 
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..

Today, there are four main ways  to address P2P network traffic growth –

 • ISP Pricing and Policies – modifying subscription plans from unlimited to usage based pricing which is very unpopular too, it seems doubtful that subscribers used to unlimited plans will tolerate new pricing. Competitive disadvantage compared to ISPs offering flat-rate pricing

Purchasing Additional Bandwidth – buying transit bandwidth to accommodate network growth from increased P2P usage unfortunately ISP suppliers are trying to gouge the customers here too

Traffic Shaping – utilizing deep packet inspection devices to throttle or completely discriminately block P2P traffic and rightfully the customers, users see his as harassment, a contract violation and shaping P2P traffic limits future ISP revenue opportunities from more P2P services.

P2P Caching – utilizing P2P caches to cache and serve P2P content- Content caching is a well-known and established technology used by ISPs primarily for acceleration of Web content delivery. It Generates bandwidth without additional backbone investments but an Upfront investment is  required.  P2P caching, similar to Web caching, temporarily stores popular content flowing into the ISP network. If the content requested by a subscriber is available from a cache, cache satisfies the request from its temporary storage, eliminating data transfer through expensive transit line. With estimates of over 75% of P2P content is requested multiple times, P2P content responds well to caching, manifesting high reuse patterns. Once a P2P Cache is established, the network transparently redirects all P2P traffic to a cache which either serves the file directly or passes the request onto a remote P2P user and simultaneously caches that file for the next user. Estimates are that P2P caches have seen an amazing 80% byte hit ratio, meaning that 4 of 5 files requested via P2P can be served by the cache. This is significantly much higher than http/web caching. P2P Caching is the only solution that enables ISPs to fully and affordably embrace P2P on their networks. Instead of growing bandwidth to meet increasing demand, or limiting P2P usage through policies or traffic shaping, P2P Caching lets ISPs simultaneously serve the needs of P2P and non-P2P users without negatively impacting either audience. In fact, P2P Caching provides an improved experience for all subscribers – P2P users whose file sharing is improved through using the cache, and non-P2P users who experience better performance from networks un-congested from P2P traffic. http://www.peerapp.com/docs/ComparingP2P.pdf

 
The Canadian cellphone and internet speeds, rates are unacceptably among world’s worst, Canadians are being hosed for more and more money for their access still too.   Rogers, Bell, Videotron, Shaw, Telus all only care about one thing.. maximum profits.. motivated by maximum greed.. finding an excuse to charge the customer for more.. and that they have done with their regulating, capping… and no one cares about what the consumer thinks, even the  politicians, governments, the CRTC included.  No companies provide a FULL  service or an adequate  product it seems these days…. all they provide mainly now is more profits for themselves hopefully. And as long as we allow them to do so, by letting companies and industries run roughshod over the governance of the country, then also the corprote bad service, lies, price gouging  will continue. Good Products and good services falsely are a distant second in offerings in relation to corporate profits. 
 

do see also

https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/the-new-still-sad-unacceptable-reality/

https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/crtc-farcical-hearings-on-internet-speed-control/

 

Free public domain photos, wallpapers http://www.photos8.com/
  
 “Canada lags in wireless service …   … and what should be done about it   By Michael Geist, Citizen  August 25, 2009 Where does Canada stand with respect to the cost of wireless services?  the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released new figures that ranked it as the third most expensive developed country.  Given that consumers have a hard time making sense of the different plans, options, and hidden fees offered by Canada’s big three wireless providers (Rogers, Bell and Telus), it should come as little surprise that comparisons of wireless services across dozens of countries is exceptionally difficult. Some countries charge consumers for both incoming and outgoing calls, while many others do not. Moreover, hidden charges such as Canada’s system access fee — which can add as much as 25 per cent to a monthly bill — are often excluded from cost calculations. While the debate will continue to rage, few currently hold Canada up as a model of wireless leadership.
 
If not pricing, what should policy makers and politicians be focusing on? Four main issues come to mind.
-The first is competition, particularly among GSM providers. While this will change later this year, for the moment Rogers is the only GSM provider in the country. Since GSM has emerged as the dominant global wireless technology, this has had big consequences for consumer choice and marketplace competition. Most new devices, such as the popular Apple iPhone, are available only for GSM providers, meaning that Rogers has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the hottest devices.  There is another spectrum auction on the horizon that holds the possibility of opening the door to further competitors, particularly if Industry Minister Tony Clement is willing to revisit foreign ownership restrictions.
-The auction also provides an opportunity to address the second issue — wireless net neutrality. The current “walled garden” approach adopted by Canadian carriers, in which they frequently control the applications that run on their networks, has already attracted the attention of the CRTC. It has ruled that new regulatory requirements are needed to counter the resulting competition concerns.
-Transparency in pricing should also be addressed. Canadian carriers continue to levy system access fees as a separate charge, despite the fact that they are nothing more than an additional cost to consumers. Moreover, carriers often bury significant usage restrictions in the fine print, leaving consumers without a true sense of the cost of their mobile phones. Clear guidelines on disclosures would enable consumers to better choose among providers.
-Fourth, the length of consumer contracts further stymies competition. Canadian wireless carriers attempt to lock consumers into contracts for far longer than virtually any other developed country, with three-year contracts considered the norm. Several years ago, Canada instituted wireless number portability that allows consumers to keep their numbers when switching providers. While designed to fuel greater competition, the policy has largely failed, owing to the combined effect of a single GSM provider (meaning consumers often lose their device when switching providers) and long-term contracts.
 Canadians should be focused on competition, walled gardens, pricing transparency, and a cap on contractual terms. “
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.cahttp://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+lags+wireless+service/1926050/story.html

On Monday, the US FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski  outlinined  plans to turn the agency’s principles for open Internet access into official regulation.  In addition to making sure that network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, or attaching unharmful devices to the network, Genachowski wants to add two more rules.   The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. But the regulation that Genachowski is proposing will not apply to just wireline broadband networks, such as DSL and cable modem service. It will also apply to wireless services. Wireless carriers shouldn’t be allowed to block certain types of Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

 FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said wireless carriers should be subject to the same “open Internet” principles that the agency has begun to apply to home broadband providers. The FCC is already investigating the state of competition in the wireless market. Even though there are four major nationwide carriers–AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA–the majority of the market is controlled by two carriers. And their dominance is increasing.  And the US President Obama’s anti-trust cop Christine Varney is now also  reviewing, a Bottleneck Monopoly,   the Telecom  wireless companies’ exclusive handset deals–most notably AT&T’s monopoly control over Apple’s iPhone. The US  Congress is starting to wonder whether it’s fair business.  It’s the first step in what could be a regulatory road; one that could result in major shake-ups inside the cell industry. Congress is bringing this up now because rural cell phone companies have complained that exclusivity agreements are unfair to small carriers. When the national bullies have exclusive rights to a phone, the rural cousins do also  have to peddle inferior devices. The Justice Department may also review whether telecom carriers are unduly restricting the types of services other companies can offer on their networks.  The Australian government raised pressure on Australia’s largest telecommunications company Telstra Corp.  to surrender its market domination by splitting its wholesale and retail businesses and what is Canada, the CRTC doing as well? Nothing good!

   
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  AND IT FURTHER EXPLAINS WHY BELL HAS TO CAP IT 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?
 
 
It has always confounded me as to why the liars, crooks, deceivers, abusers in governments, churches,   institutions, corporations   too often do still do think they can get away with now, next and forever.
 
FOR WE TEND TO KNOW THAT THEY THE CROOKS, ABUSERS TOO,  NOW ARE NOT ABOUT TO STOP THEIR WRONG DOINGS. RATHER THEY WILL NEXT EVEN ESCALATE, CONTINUE IN THEM. AND THAT IS ANOTHER VALID REASON  THEY DO NEED TO BE EXPOSED, PROSECUTED AND STOPPED. EVEN FOR THE GOOD OF US ALL.
 
  
While the pretentious Canadian Liberal and Conservatives governments, are presently engulfed in the  Quebec mafia scandals too, while they  clearly do not care about the average citizens, about their consumer protection, yes the ordinary citizens  concerns too, but they all  wrongfully it seems to care only about big businesses making  more money at any costs, the reality of this is all  evident by the fact this  page has become the ALL TIME most read post of mine.. 
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/crtc-farcical-hearings-on-internet-speed-control/
The federal, provincial governments, the CRTC, Conservatives, Liberals  unfairly maintaining  archaic, monopolistic telecommunication firms, that are often   bloated, cost ineffective, incompetent, over staffed, un-competitively managed as well is the main reasons consumer costs falsely keep on going up now.
  
FIRST DO TELL MY GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA THAT ALL THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, THE RCMP TOO NOW,  COPYRIGHTS DO ALSO BELONG TO ME, A CITIZEN OF CANADA, ONE OF THE MAY OWNERS OF CANADA NOW TOO, AND THAT AS A RESULT I CAN PASTE, POST ANY OF MY COPYRIGHT MATERIAL  FREELY ON MY WEBS SITE FOR ALL TO SEE.
 
TORONTO – The office of Canada’s auditor general says it’s perfectly OK – and much appreciated – if websites link to reports on its government site, but warns they should not be hosted elsewhere. Advocates for copyright reform expressed concern Thursday when the auditor general’s office demanded the Globe and Mail newspaper remove a copy of a report that had been attached to one of its online articles. The Globe was displaying the report with a web application called Scribd, which allows large documents to be embedded on a web page without the need for an external program like Adobe Reader. It also keeps readers on the same web page, rather than sending them off to another site to read the document. Beth Stewart, a lawyer for the office of auditor general Sheila Fraser, said the document was ordered off Scribd’s servers because of concerns with the website’s terms of use. It was her understanding that users of Scribd documents are permitted to alter the files and use them in other ways, Stewart said.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/life/sci_tech/Auditor-general_s-office-says-it_s-OK-to-link-to_-but-not-host_-its-reports-69326817.html

March 20, 2009

Hours Passed Before Doctors Saw Natasha Richardson – NYTimes.com

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/health/21richardson.html?ref=world
 
This was, is a very tragic death..  The simple explanation is that medical personnel tend not to be overly sympathetic to persons who have been hurt in a skiing accident. I know  I had two members of my family hurt in skiing accidents and the medical service was slow.. they were not sympathetic. BUT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE MEDICAL CARE SYSTEM ITSELF HAS BEEN AT FAULT HERE. Quebec’s medical care system is one of the best in Canada and it is still the patient’s personal reponsibility to insure they get the needed medical treatment  ASAP as well.. Richardson refused potentially life-saving treatment on scene shortly after her fall, and  she wasn’t wearing a ski helmet
 
 

00fun165

 

Sadly “OTTAWA — The actress Natasha Richardson, who died Wednesday from a brain hemorrhage after a fall on a beginners’ ski slope in Quebec, was not admitted to a hospital until nearly four hours after her accident, according to ambulance dispatch records obtained Friday by The New York Times.

That is nearly three hours later than the timeline that officials at the Mont Tremblant ski resort, about 90 minutes north of Montreal, offered Tuesday, the day after Ms. Richardson, 45, fell during a skiing lesson.

The first paramedics, who arrived at 1 p.m. Monday, were turned away after she declined treatment, ambulance records show, though they reported seeing her sitting on a stretcher — not laughing and walking off her fall, as a resort spokeswoman said Tuesday.

According to the resort, about an hour later another ambulance was summoned to her hotel after she complained of a headache. That ambulance, the resort said, took her to a local hospital.

But the ambulance records show that the second ambulance was not sent to her room until 3 p.m., Yves Coderre, the director of operations at Ambulances Radisson, which serves the resort under an arrangement with Quebec’s public health care system, said Friday in an interview.

The ambulance arrived nine minutes later and left the hotel at 3:42 p.m., arriving at the hospital in Ste. Agathe, about 25 miles from Mont Tremblant, at 4:20 p.m., where she was attended by a doctor for the first time.

Those discrepancies appeared to raise new questions about whether Ms. Richardson could have been saved had she been treated sooner. The New York medical examiner’s office ruled Ms. Richardson’s death an accident; the autopsy results suggested that the fall tore an artery and led to bleeding between Ms. Richardson’s skull and the outer lining of her brain.”

    

do see also https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/canadian-health-care/

July 6, 2008

Bell, BCE, Sympatico. iPhone

Filed under: News and politics — thenonconformer @ 7:14 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bell bites back with poor-man’s iPhone Globe and Mail – 3 Jul 2008 BCE Inc.’s lengthy struggle to privatize may have left management distracted and Bell Canada’s brand reliant on a couple of aging beavers, but the phone company is still managing to strike back at its more nimble rivals.
Bell to offer smartphone with unlimited data plan CBC.ca
Can You Avoid The iPhone Data Plans From Rogers? Yes, But It Will CTV.ca
E Canada Now – Marketnews.ca – The Gate – Canada NewsWire (press release)

Ever wonder besides viruses that as time goes by you notice that   your computer net is slower, and slower, well it is no secret Bell, Rogers, and others cannot handle the continually increasing demands caused by computers and iphones now too. So their systems break down too often, have too many failures often, are over used, in over capacity mode.. and these carriers seem to  have been to cheap to rectify the problem, update, modernize their communication equipment..    https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/buyer-beware-beware/

The stastics on my own sites do show that MY MANY POSTS ABOUT MY UNDENIABLE EXPERIENCE WITH BAD BELL SYMPATICO ARE STILL ON THE TOP 3 MOST POPULAR READINGS OF ALL OF MY VARIOUS TOPICS THAT I HAVE POSTED ON MANY SITES OF MINE.

I had already written months ago  even here that Bell was capping the Sympatico downloads EVEN cause it was making way for their iphone business and Bell will definitely abuse it’s phone customers the next same way it has undeniably now too  abused many of it’s ISP customers. Sad and unaccepatable.
 
    
Message from youth: Don’t charge us for incoming texts
Canoe.ca –  SUN MEDIA A decision by telecom giants Bell and Telus to charge customers for receiving text messages as well as sending them isn’t sitting well with youth who use the service more than any other group.
Bell/Telus Text Messaging Cash Grab Makes No Economic Sense Teleclick.ca
Text-fee plan flayed Winnipeg Sun
Prepaid Reviews – Canada.com – CBC.ca – Canoe.ca
all 109 news articles »
 

 

consumer groups and opposition politicians are alarmed, since cellphone users have no control over who messages them. The groups see the new charges as a cash-grab, and want the federal government to regulate how telecommunications firms set fees. 
 

  

 see also
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/bell-sympatico/
http://postedat.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/dealing-effectively-with-complaints-problems-bad-service-isp-provider/

 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/CtznK287/bell.htm

   

July 5, 2008

Too Many major ISP suppliers are unacceptably guilty of

Filed under: News and politics — thenonconformer @ 5:50 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Too Many major ISP suppliers are unacceptably guilty of initial and subsequent false misleading advertising practices, and an immoral  “Bait and switch” business   practice as well.
 
Here is the undeniable reality.. Many bad ISP corporations beforehand do not disclose the amount of capping that they do to their customers., or after wards, or lie as to much they supposedly cap. For example I have a Bell Sympatico connection or I can use a second party proxy connection, and next I get twice the download speeds with the proxy over the Bell’s capped services even  during the non peak hours as well, such as all day Saturday.. not just  evenings  4.0 pm to 2. am when Bell admits it caps their lines. Now that is a fact any potential bell customer should know now too.
 
“AP  Sun Jun 15, 9:45 AM ET  At one time, the word “unlimited” meant unlimited.
 
Sprint’s mobile broadband service is the latest to abandon the term and the principle in favor of a monthly cap designed to keep their heaviest users from overwhelming their network.
 
But Sprint isn’t alone: its two 3G competitors also cap usage, and two wireline broadband operators are testing explicit caps as well. In the earliest days of broadband, service was either heavily capped, with ridiculously low limits–I recall DSL plans that had 1 GB monthly downstream limits for business-grade offerings–or totally uncapped. 
 
 Now, the idea of capped service with metered rates, stern warnings, or cancellations above a monthly limit are fully in fashion. For the last few years, companies like Comcast and Verizon’s wired broadband division have warned users about excessive downloads, degraded their service, or canceled their accounts, often with little recourse, and sometimes denying it all the while. Enough states’ attorneys general and FCC staff and commissioners have been involved that what was implicit has become explicit, but with the related effect that caps have become much lower than what they were in the ad hoc days before these changes. Driving all this is not scarcity, because there’s plenty of headroom out there on the Internet, but two interrelated issues: service providers always dramatically oversell their service, and some users are actually abusers. ( But really how can one be an absuer when he pays for and uses what was advertised now?
 
 On the first issue, if an ISP has 500 people connected to a central office DSLAM (a DSL aggregator) with a total downstream bandwidth of 2 Gbps, there’s no universe in which a phone company makes available 2 Gbps to that location. Rather, they allot a fraction of that, which works when traffic is bursty, not continuous. Many people downloading or streaming a lot impact everyone in the same grouping. (I’ve seen this at home when I complained about my 3 Mbps DSL dropping to 500 Kbps at night. A Qwest technician explained I was lumped with heavy users, and with about 20 minutes of waiting on the phone, regrouped my line to another, less used pod of users, and my service has been fine since. The nice part is that was a logical change; no one had to walk over to a cage and move my wires around.)
 
The second issue has provoked a lot of debate. But without explicitly labeling the limits on a service, a subscriber can’t technically abuse it. If you know when you sign up for Comcast that they limit your use to 10 GB and provide tools to monitor as well as an understanding of what that bandwidth would allow you to “consume” each month, it’s a very different matter than “all you can eat. “
 
Verizon had long promised unlimited Broadband Access for their 3G EVDO mobile broadband service. But it was well documented that unlimited had fairly strict limits. After an investigation by the New York attorney general’s office, Verizon agreed to change its disclosures, pay some costs to the state, and refund money to some subscribers. The company now fully discloses its 5 GB per month limit for combined upstream and downstream data. Verizon charges you 49 cents per MB ($490 per GB) when you cross that limit, and the company says that they use email, SMS, and a live data usage display in their connection manager to keep you apprised. Note that a single high-definition movie download might consume nearly 5 GB.AT&T, likewise, has a 5 GB cap each month on LaptopConnect, its 3G cell data offering, with unspecified behavior when you top that amount–additional charges may apply, but clarity would be helpful. They note in their PDF-only terms and conditions: “The parties agree that AT&T has the right to impose additional charges if you use more than 5 B in a month. Prior to the imposition of any additional charges, AT&T shall provide you with notice and you shall have the right to terminate your service.”Sprint has joined this club with first the leaked news and then official confirmation that starting July 13, 2008, its 3G service would also have a 5 GB cap. A spokesperson told me that off-network roaming–ostensibly with Verizon or Alltel, the only other major providers of 3G in the US using the EVDO flavor–is capped at 300 MB per month. Now these are all 3G providers, who have limited spectrum over which they have to make sure all contending users in each cell get approximately the same kind of experience. They can’t afford one user sucking down all bandwidth. However, we’re seeing the same kinds of limits start to be tested for cable-based broadband.

Comcast is testing delaying traffic–slowing down packet transmission to throttle the bandwidth rate–in two Eastern cities they cover for the heaviest users of their service. This is an effective cap, rather than a cutoff. (Comcast has been delaying BitTorrent P2P traffic for all its users prior to this; this change affects all traffic, not just BitTorrent, and is being announced, instead of sub rosa.) In a town in Texas, Time Warner Cable is experimenting with offering different speed packages each of which is coupled with a monthly limit on usage. The lowest-priced package offers a ridiculous 768 Kbps downstream and 1 GB per month for $30 per month; the highest-priced is 15 Mbps downstream with a more reasonable 40 GB per month limit. Charges are $1 per GB above that. With cable companies traditionally and telephone companies newly offering television programming, premium channels, and on-demand video, the caps are another tool to prevent competition from over-the-Internet sources of things to watch. In a situation in which a few carriers control all the pieces, it’s unclear whether rate caps can stick. If both telcos and cable companies decide to impose such limits and restructure their networks, who do you turn to? People with broadband are unlikely to cancel it. In a monopoly or duopoly market, you can’t switch brands. There has to be a happy middle–a role that the FCC may help to negotiate. A 40 GB cap switched to 400 GB might serve precisely the right purpose without penalizing average users who have no other market choice. With Time Warner Cable charging a buck a gigabyte above their monthly limits in their test market, but with Amazon’s S3 service delivering it retail for as little as a tenth that, it’s not hard to see that carriers are looking to caps to solve network problems and make a little scratch on the side.”  http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080615/tc_pcworld/146752

 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/CtznK287/bell.htm
 
Beware always of men and women, bullies, tormentors, control freaks,  persons, civil and public servants,  politicians, pastors, leaders, elders, Corporations, governments who falsely do, will try to enslave you, oppress you, exploit you even while they claim they are proclaiming the truth, democracy, trying to help you, etc.,
 
Is 51:23 ..your tormentors {and} oppressors, those who said to you, Bow down, that we may ride {or} tread over you; and you have made your back like the ground and like the street for them to pass over.

Blog at WordPress.com.