CTV News | 'Traffic-shaping' likely to slow Internet users

Top Stories -   

'Traffic-shaping' likely to slow Internet users

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: John Vennavally-Rao on the slowdown

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(55)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Mon. Apr. 7 2008 10:47 PM ET

Independent Internet service providers who use Bell Canada's telephone lines say some of their customers face slower download times because of new 'traffic-shaping' policies being implemented by the telecom giant.

Last week, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), filed an official complaint with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission over the 'traffic-shaping' measures.

CAIP alleges Bell is using a technique known as Deep Packet Inspection, or DPI, to examine the types of data moving across the Internet. CAIP claims Bell is then restricting the movements of certain types of data -- primarily large files such as movies or music over peer-to-peer networks.

The complaint alleges that the measures are in violation of several section of the country's telecommunications act.

CAIP chairman Tom Copeland, who also owns Internet service provider Eagle.ca, said the traffic-shaping typically takes place between 4 p.m. to 2 a.m.

"They have eliminated our ability to decide how we manage that level of service between us and our customers," Copeland told CTV.ca.

He said independent Internet service providers have approximately 100,000 users in Ontario and Quebec who will be affected by the measure.

"There has been a bit of a misunderstanding that all we do is re-sell Bell service -- that's not the case," said Copeland. "We're purchasing a physical link between us and the customer but we provide the Internet services outside of anything we purchase from Bell.

"It's the point on their network before it reaches the customer that they're choking and preventing the traffic from flowing."

Switching your account directly to Bell Canada won't help either since the company has already imposed 'traffic-shaping' on its existing customers since last year.

Elsewhere in Canada, major carriers, both telecom and cable, have not implemented 'traffic-shaping' policies, said Copeland.

Bell's response

Bell claims the new policies are meant to prevent a small group of users from hogging bandwidth from others online.

Mirko Bibic, Bell's chief of regulatory affairs, rebuffed the CAIP complaint saying that Bell has a right to maintain the integrity of its network.

He said DPI technology is a useful way to monitor traffic online.

"Bandwidth doesn't just fall from the sky,'' Bibic told The Canadian Press, adding that more bandwidth would not resolve congestion issues.

He also said traffic shaping was part of a "multi-pronged" strategy used to prevent congestion.

Still, Copeland said if congestion is the problem then "why won't adding bandwidth improve the situation?"

He also said the measure appears to be impacting all forms of encrypted traffic, not just peer-to-peer.

"Things like Voice over IP and VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) -- are being slowed down," he said.

CAIP says the full extent of the measures from Bell will be in place by Monday.

As a result, downloading a video that used to take two hours could now take four-times as long, said Copeland.

Rogers Communications has had similar policies in place for its own customers. However, Rogers doesn't have many independent Internet service providers as clients.

The restrictions have sparked a debate over the level of competition allowed in the industry and the availability of options for Internet users wanting fast service.

"The ability of a select number of Internet providers to limit their access, to advertise certain speed but deliver far less when Canadians go to use the Internet, I think has very serious implications," Internet law expert Michael Geist told CTV News.

Richard Morochove, a Toronto-based IT consultant, said average users have little input in the level of service they receive.

"It really comes down to consumers and a lack of real choice of broadband internet service,'' Morochove told The Canadian Press.

"We're having . . . a near monopoly situation in Canada with respect to high-speed broadband access."

Morochove said he sees the move as being motivated by a desire to limit competition from independent providers.

According to the CAIP complaint, Bell has also done away with its unlimited Internet plan and will, starting June 30, bill customers based on how much bandwidth they use.

Rogers recently announced similar measures and will soon charge between $1.25 and $5 for every extra gigabyte a customer uses.

"It strikes us as funny that if you are going to be billing your customers based on what they consume, why would you limit what they consume?" questioned Copeland.

He said the fear among independent Internet providers is that they too will be charged on a usage base also.

With files from The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

John in London
said

The day I get billed per usage is the day I will cancel that service.

It is bad enough they do it with cell phones, but I personally won't tolerate it with internet access.



Johann
said

Rogers did the same.

No notification, no warning and it was not in my contract when I signed.

In fact they were still announcing "unlimited useage" at the time.

There will be a backlash and a petition for sure and similar to ones in other countries that halted the spread of "add ons".


Did
said

Less service, bigger prices, what is it? Canadian Business Model


A MacDonald
said

I agree with John in London. However, if Aliant - the ISP in the maritimes - does something customers don't like, we in rural Nova Scotia have to swallow it because Aliant has a monopoly over rural internet access. I think it's important in these cases for the CRTC and other arms of the Canadian government to more heavily regulate these high-profit corportations.


Wake up and "smell the coffee"!
said

People who do not see what is coming are unwilling to admit the truth about human nature. Most Canadians today are slow and dull and cannot interpret the simplest things correctly. Yes of course it was all easy to begin with wasn't it? And we haven't seen anything yet! Data bases are filling up and the entire human race will come under the control and dictatorship of a few people who rule through modern technology!

Brian
said

I lived in the US for a couple years and have always been wary of how little competition there is within the communication industry here in Canada. I am all for Canadian companies remaining financially viable, however what exactly are we protecting here? Rogers & Bells ability to strangle the little guy? Profit needs to be honest profit. Customers should not be held "liable" for taking advantage of the unlimited offers that these companies agressively pushed for years. If a company offers something it cannot provide, it gets to change the rules?


Johann
said

Too bad we didn't live in the US where it's easy to sue or should i say less costly.

I would sue in a heartbeat for what they are doing. i pay my $30+ / month to have HIGH speed...not choked speed. I called Bell a few months ago and they said they were having issues b/c of new hardware installations. Fast forward to now and it's the same and worse. At times, i feel as if I'm on dial up. :(




Pam
said

If the slow-down and extra charges are mainly caused by down-loading music and movies then wouldn't it be cheaper to purchase them at the store?

There are some of us that don't download these items so why should we be penalized for their greed?




RK
said

I recieved a letter from Rogers last week saying that they are limiting my usage, and charging for each additional gigabyte I use. Bell and Rogers are the only two high speed providers in my area, so I in effect do not have an option for "unlimited" highspeed anymore. This used to be called a monopoly (or duo-opoly as the case may be)... but now its just "business as usual". Remember the good ol' days when our government protected us from stuff like this? What do I know, we're just little guys once again being fleeced for more money by the big bad corporations out there.


Carl Bainbridge
said

I do agree that it is not really proper to do this to customers who already have signed on to an unlimited plan however when rogers introduced this plan in the maritimes i did look how it compared to the amount of service i actually used

in the month when i did the most downloading and uploading recently i still barely hit 25% of my allowed capacity and we run 2 computers about 12 hours a day


pp
said

So go to satellite or wireless broadband... dump Bell and use these other services. They may be more expensive right now but if more and more people when this way then Bell would have no choice but to 'compete' meaning lower prices and better service.

Anyway what is everyone complaining for - I only get dialup where I live - Bell has been 'promising' for years that I will have DSL 'within the year' hmmmm yep been 8 yrs now... don't care anymore cannot stand the 'net....


Marion
said

I agree with John from London. The day the charge per usage is the day I cancel the service. Let's all go back to the old days where we booked our vacation with a travel agent, got our news delivered to the door, called our friends on the landline.


freedom lover
said

Usage limits will become increasingly constraining and the area of fake competition by the dominant service providers yapping about different "plans" as in the cellphone sector.


Dennis in Toronto
said

This is nothing short of corporate greed. Consumer's wallets speak louder than words. It is time that consumers send both Bell and Rogers a clear message by not subscribing to add-on services and cancelling services with them.


Robinhood
said

"Bell maintains the new policies are intended to level the playing field by preventing a small group of Internet users from hogging coveted bandwidth"

... if that is the case then I totally agree with the policy. Why should a few users jam up the internet for everyone else as they download stolen copies of music and movies?!
The user "hogs" have no more right to use the internet than everyone else. That being said this policy should not be permitted as a means by the telecom companies of avoiding more investment in the Web's infrastructure if increased bandwidth is needed.



Truth Sayer
said

The real reason behind this is $$$.

The hardware used to do this can also do the following:

A debate is raging in the UK over ISPs' use of deep packet inspection hardware to watch consumer surfing habits and sell them targeted ads.

Also:
"A team of researchers have found that Comcast has quietly rolled out a new traffic-shaping method, which is interfering with web browsers in addition to p2p traffic.



Brian
said

"Carl Bainbridge
....when rogers introduced this plan in the maritimes i did look how it compared to the amount of service i actually used In the month when i did the most downloading and uploading recently i still barely hit 25% of my allowed capacity and we run 2 computers about 12 hours a day"

I certainly agree with this, as I do not use even close to the maximum amount. But a portion of my cost is for UNLIMITED use. If they are taking that away, why am I still paying the same amount?



Ralph
said

Does that mean I'm going to have to pay more for watching a broadband news item on my internet? FORGET that nonsense. I figure I'm paying about double what I should be, now. With all the ads all over each page or link, and those most annoying POP-OUT ads that cover what I'm reading, enuf is enuf.

Jack Rumney
said

I signed on with a second tier DSL provider with the understanding there wasn't traffic shaping, throttling or bit caps. I signed a contract and paid for one year of service. Now my contract has been violated 7 months in. I wonder what my rights are, or is that an unfamiliar term in the Rogers/Bell monopoly world? Why aren't the Feds getting involved?




Robert Brise
said

I agree with John in London

This why I don't carry a cell phone anymore and If the internet becomes the same, I'll dump that too!!!
Who really needs it, except for convenience sake!


Mike
said

It is a shame that these companies feel they can do what they want when they want with little or no warning. However I hear many saying that it is better in the US. It isn't. Congress is now about to set standards as to what constitutes broadband. The internet speed in the US is extremely slow compared to the rest of the world. The fact that most of the US internet providers all agree with each other doesn't make it right. At least here even with the slow down most of us will not notice much difference.


rural and abused
said

I run a small business, esentially an ad agency, from a rural address and I depend on the ability to send and receive large files. some of them are even music files, part of what I do. I cannot afford to be arbitarily limited on usage with out prior consulation. A nearby rural customer of mine was recently kicked off of Bell wireless less than a month after purchasing "unlimited service" from Bell for sending and receiveing too much info. There he was sudenly, no internet for a week, it was hell for his business. If you reserve your right to conduct business as you see fit, at least be honest about what you provide. And give us some options, out here we are at the mercy of a couple of big providers who offer very limited services even though the rural poulation of this county equates that of a small city. Give me what I need and I'll pay for it if I really want it. And give me what you say I'm supposed to get.


Michael
said

I think the problem has to do with the constant high bandwidths that a few people use on the Internet. Bandwidth allocation to non-commercial customers was not designed with people downloading entire movies and music albums in mind. You can never have enough bandwith for that type of traffic. I understand the need to throttle back the speeds of certain types of traffic at certain times. Speeds will increase with better technology but people who download movies and music albums use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and need to be treated differently.


Eric G
said

Since when is "unlimited service" a viable business model?

When ISPs started this in 1995, quality plummetted and all dropped it or charged more for it.

A buck a GB is quite reasonable. What exactly are you guys downloading?


Mike
said

Hmmm.

I'm a Telus Subscriber in BC. I've been trying to diagnose why the audio on an audio/ video news feed from CNN is all broken up for 2 days now. I wonder if it has anything to do with this restriction that the other providers are imposing. Anyone???


Lisa
said


Dennis in Toronto pretty much summed it up in a couple of sentences. Until we the citizans take a stand, gouging corporations like these get away with this type of legalized mofia every day. I would like to see a lawyer here in Canada take a stand and put an end to this ridiculous, unjustified NEW so called Pricing!! How can you possibly justify this. What people do with their time on the internet is their business and should not require Bells or any other business's permission to do so unless a crime is being committed. Take a stand!!!


Bandwidth Hog
said

What do you do when Customers are using the product you sold them to the fullest extent?

When a company advertises high speed internet, I expect high speed internet all the time for all my data, not just some of the data some of the time.

These ISP's need to focus on expanding capacity instead of trying to limit the load.

By failing to expand capacity they are saving billions of dollars. The Canadian Government needs to step in and legislate these companies to put some of their profits toward improving their infrastructure.

As we are relying more and more on data and technology we can't just sit back and take this bullying from our service providers.

The CRTC needs to allow greater Foreign Investment as to allow more competition so the consumers don't get screwed.



Jim
said

Two words - Class Action!


sarah
said

I have been planning to switch to a Bell internet service provider for a while now directly as a result of Rogers' attempts to reduce the bandwidth available to me for downloads, and now it looks like I will have no options at all. I'll still be switching though; Rogers had the audacity to announce that they're going to start charging users by bandwidth usage to 'serve us better', a violation of the 'unlimited' internet access they claim to offer. Telecom providers need to realize that we won't put up with 'tiered service' or 'shaped service'. How I choose to use the internet connection I am paying for is my business, and they have no right to limit that.

Did has it right: 'Less service, bigger prices, what is it? Canadian Business Model'.


sheri
said

from 4:30 to 2 am .. what about the ones that work til 5 or later..that don't sit in front of a computer ALL Day downloading .. I pay over 45.00 a month for my internet.. now they want to charge extra!


Gord
said

I can't help but be annoyed by the calls for MORE Government Regulation!

It is excessive Government Regulation which has created the lack of competition in the first place!

We need LESS Government Regulation and MORE Free Market Competition. The Free Market will succeed where the Government has failed.


Increase in supply will force price competition!
said

As in the cell-phone markets, the number of suppliers will increase thus reducing the monopolistic stranglehold ISP have currently (we hope). These changes will inevitably force prices to drop!


Kaine
said

My issue is for the price they charge. I live in an area that could only be serviced by Rogers and another smaller company. I went with the smaller company and paid $39.95 a month. I had blistering speeds and no "choking". Rogers just bought them out and now Im frustrated that all i can do is sign on with Rogers, change my addresses, my speeds are a portion of what they were and now I have house thats wired for internet rendered useless. Now I pay more with half the service and read this article. I'm tired of getting nickled and dimed by these corporations.


Mary Mary
said

Right on, Bandwidth Hog. You nailed it right on the head.

A quote from the above news story: "Bell Canada recently decided to quietly restrict the amount of file-sharing traffic..." says it all.

Why "quietly" Bell Canada?

Could it be because you garnered contracts with consumers based on "unlimited" but now you'd like to "quietly" rescind and negate your promises?

Looks like people have decided to "noisily" complain. Are you paying attention Bell?


Johann der Kraut
said

Now let us see:

Bell and Rogers made this 'similar' decision INDEPENDANTLY? Give me a break.

Where is the anti-competition bureau? Still insisting there is no collusion among gas companies?

Even today I got a little note from Rogers suggesting I sign up for $29.95 and in timy letters with no explanation is a note "Plus other fees".

Interesting as think they made a mistake as I got my first warning after 4 days of April saying I exceeded 100% of bandwidth but I am an OAP and do not download movies, videos nor music and am seldom on the internet during peak hours.

Something stinks.


Brian
said

Eric G
Since when is "unlimited service" a viable business model?

Eric,

Ever eaten at an all you can eat buffet? Gone to an amusement park? Joined a gym? All examples of unlimited usage for a specific contractual time period & set price. I have never heard of a gym offering a monthly fee for unlimited usage of the gym, only to charge for additional visits b/c people were using the service too much.

I feel no sympathy for companies that advertise high-speeds knowing full well they cannot deliver them. Until this new 'polciy' was unveiled, I am pretty sure I watch dozens of Rogers & Bell commercials telling people something quite different.


bls
said

pp, satellite or wireless is not the answer and it is certainly not a good or reasonable alternative to whatever you get via wired services in the cities. I live in a rural area with only satellite or dialup as my internet options. I am an Xplornet satellite customer, on a package of promised download speeds "up to 512kb" [note the "up to"--they say in the contract they don't guarantee the speed or even the service, for that matter]. I've never received higher than 500, and that is usually early mornings and late evenings. Xplornet has a Fair Access Policy in place, which is set automatically and varies according to time of day and usage, so Xplornet can't even give you figures as to when that FAP thing kicks in. And when it does kick in, your speed is throttled back 25% per hour as long as you continue to download anything (which could include whatever you receive just from ordinary web surfing). I've been FAP'd back to dialup speed on occasion. If you completely stop using the internet for an hour, your speed goes right back up, but during peak times, that could still be 1/3 to 1/2 the package you're paying for. One or 2 Youtube videos would be enough to get you FAP'd and that's usually what happens with us. If we want to download anything big, such as a music file we've purchased or a large program update, we do it late at night. We can't use certain online antivirus scanners because the constant interaction between the scanner and the PC would get us FAP'd and the speed would be reduced so drastically that the scan would never finish. Xplornet calls itself "Broadband", but it really isn't. Watching anything "broadband" online is out of the question. I've heard from other users that paying for a higher speed package will just get you FAP'd faster, too.
What we have is better than dialup, to be sure, but there is room for improvement with the entire ISP industry.
Canada really needs to shape up its internet infrastructure, and I think the CRTC needs to be involved to ensure quality, reliability, & fair business practices.



Mamad
said

Shaw was like this.. They were blocking certain programs from accessing their network. So I cancelled my service and switched to Telus. With Telus TV, I have basically no limit to my downloads or uploads. They don't block any programs either and their network is much faster Than Shaw. It seems like Telus is the best choice so far.. In BC anyways...


Alex D
said

The ramifications of Bell and Rogers and Videotron are a lot more than just stopping P2P traffic. I suggest everyone look at what is happening in the US with net neutrality. The argument AT&T brings to the table is that Google shouldn't be allowed to use AT&T's bandwidth for free, even though the request for Google's services come from an AT&T customer. AT&T then ends up billing twice for the same usage. That is one scenario that is directly related to what Bell et. al. are doing.

Another problem is that this HINDERS the progress of the internet, which is fast moving to an entire rich media experience. CTV's website alone has tonnes of videos of news casts and other things that take up considerable amounts of bandwidth. Companies like CTV are at risk of losing this service because Bell throttled the speed between CTV and a Sympatico customer and the customer gave up waiting for the video to load.

Yes, P2P takes up a lot of bandwidth, but as the days go on, streaming music and streaming video will increasingly become common place and increasingly improve in quality. Is North America to be left out of this while Europe and Asia enjoy unfettered, cheaper, and considerably faster internet access than us?

Frankly, it's not the customer that needs to fight back, it's companies that are adversely affected, especially now that traditional media companies are scrambling to move themselves onto the internet.

I sense large court room battles brewing...


Lorne
said

The day that my Internet service provider slows down my service will be the day that I discontinue that service. I got along without the Internet for nearly 50 years and I will do just fine without it for the rest of my life. Internet service providers need to understand that we can do without them. There are lots of other means of communication available to us.


Lorne
said

The problem isn't lack of government involvement, but rather lack of competition (due to protection from the government). Open up to more competition, and prices will come down. Look, it's not like Ma Bell and Ted Rogers (3rd richest person in Canada) are hurting financially to warrant market protection.


Frank
said

It's not just illegal P2P that will be affected. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Netflix, Blockbuster, Youtube, and many other companies are embracing High speed media transfers, and with the advent of downloadable HD movies, and games, it may become the norm to Download several Gigs per day. Restricting flow or charging extra is not the answer. Creating more bandwith to support the new capacity is.


Bernard Romanycia
said

Corporate greed will cause the market to adapt.


Denise
said

I think that a few people are failing to see both issues here. The fact of the matter is that Bell has no need to "shape" internet usage to prevent bandwidth hogging if they're going to start charging people based on how much bandwidth they use. They're contradicting themselves with their own actions.

This comment from CAIP chairman Tom Copeland sums it up for me:

"It strikes us as funny that if you are going to be billing your customers based on what they consume, why would you limit what they consume?" questioned Copeland.

That says to me that Bell just wants to police P2P users, which would protect them from lawsuits filed by the music and movie industries perhaps? At the same time, however, they would be collecting larger profits from those users.


Slow Lane on the Info Highway
said

Sort of like going to an 'All You Can Eat' buffet and they only put out a plate's worth of food. They sell the bandwidth to the consumers yet they won't buy enought to supply what they've sold.


A. Conda
said

What does this bode for the sale of movies and music legitimately sold on-line and also podcasts/webcasts? I thought this was the future of the movie and music business?


Carl Chester
said

It appears that many of you do not know that Rogers and Shaw have been limiting downloads for years. I was told by Shaw in the 90's to limit my downloads or they would disconect me. The problem as I see it know is that there are business that are selling movies and music over the internet and this restriction makes it much more difficult for them to be in business. The ISP providers must increase band width. They have a moral obligation to do so. You can not sell a service and not deliver. It is time for the CRTC to step up to the plate and either allow for more compition or force ISP to provide more band width as they are hampering business in many ways that have not as of yet been considered.


Math Hurtz
said

>As a result, downloading a video that used to take two hours could now take four-times as long, said Copeland.

The cap rate is 30kB/sec, while the service is up to 500kB/sec (5Mbps).

The download can be 16 times longer.


Steve
said

To all, CRTC is the one responsible here, they are the ones allowing the mergers, they are the ones who created this big mess, we pay big dollars for internet services, cell phone, telephone, cable etc. By allowing big companies to buy smaller one, we get monopolies. By getting monopolies, companies do what they want.

What is the purpose of CRTC, nothing but to make us pay more. I am canadian, I temporarely live into another country. Telephone base line cost $7.00, cell phones: 2 cents a minute, no contract.

In canada it's 30 cents a minute? Thanks CRTC! You're doing a great job!


Sean - Montreal
said

How did the Internet companies not see a rise in demande for the Internet, every year computers are getting more and more affordable, unlike 5 - 10 years ago anybody can buy a computer for almost nothing that can surf the web


casper's can opener
said

I am not a expert at the intracacies of bandwidth, but I was a little surprised when I read that nearly 35% of the total bandwidth is taken up by pornography and spam....
Seems a pity that there is not some way to channel all the porn sites onto a separate channel that those individuals whose interests lie in that direction could subscribe to as an "extra"
It seems as well that the time will come when the internet as a whole will need a clean up of all the out of date sites and links etc that seem to be cluttering up the overall performance of our computers.....
The "net" as a whole is the most fantastic learning tool yet devised by man and to me seems like having the Library of Congress in your living room.
Pity it has to be destroyed by misuse and greed.

Just my 10cents worth !


Sick and tired
said

johann
I pay 30$ a month for dial up and i have no other way to go and i live in a small town. I cam have hig speed but at 50$ plus a month


realist
said

I guess in Canada it really is not illegal to exert monopoly rule after all. We pay exorbitant fees for the elemental transfer of electrons.


Downey
said

Gord posted the only comment that made real sense on the issue. People really don't understand that government regulation is what has caused the problem. And these same people would like to see more of it. Strange! Get informed.

Gord said:
I can't help but be annoyed by the calls for MORE Government Regulation!

It is excessive Government Regulation which has created the lack of competition in the first place!

We need LESS Government Regulation and MORE Free Market Competition. The Free Market will succeed where the Government has failed.



wasting my money
said

I live in Deep River, ON and our service is poor from the start. If I have High Speed, I would hate to see the dial up - there are days I cannot even connect. But I have no other options, there are no other companies to turn to.

For those who are wondering who uses all the bandwith, Online gaming. I have kids and XBOX live. I don't know what I'm using, but I'm sure it's getting used. I would love options because the price keeps rising, but my service has never increased.




Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz