RSSCanada's Sympatico Admits to Net Filtering
By Ed Oswald | Published November 5, 2007, 1:52 PM
Although it is out of the jurisdiction of the United States Government, a Canadian ISP's admission that it is using similar tactics as Comcast is likely to keep the debate on net neutrality going.
The admission by Bell Sympatico came through its online forums after a user complained that he was noticing problems with his connection when using peer-to-peer downloading programs.
The user -- ironically named "Speedy" -- noticed his internet connection was capped at 30kb/sec for downloads and uploads. The same problem was noted among multiple clients.
Reports of similar throttling have also appeared on DSLReports.com as well, which the poster to Sympatico's support forum noted.
Sympatico's forum support administrator responded back on October 31, admitting that the ISP was using a traffic management system that was specifically targeting traffic from P2P providers such as BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, Kazaa, eDonkey, eMule, WinMX, and others.
A "Sympatico Manager" replied with the following: "There continues to be phenomenal growth of consumer Internet traffic throughout the world and Bell is using Internet Traffic Management to ensure we deliver bandwidth fairly to our customers during peak Internet usage," while saying the company would continue to invest in network capacity.
The admission by yet another ISP that it is selectivity limiting the bandwidth of applications -- even though it is outside the US -- should still add fuel to the fire for supporters of "net neutrality."
Until Comcast's admission that they were indeed selectively filtering traffic, there was little to actually prove that it could indeed be a problem. However, now with ISP's actively admitting the practice, net neutrality is again becoming an issue.
"Cable giant Comcast has become the poster child for Net Neutrality with blatant actions to block Internet traffic that make the case for user protections," interest group SaveTheInternet.com recently said.
Quite simply, there is no choice. In the part of Canada where I live it's Bell (Sympatico/DSL), or Rogers (AT&T/Cable). Rogers offers up 12Mb ($100/mo.) and Bell up to 7 Mb, so, really there's not much of a choice.
The problem with bandwidth shaping is that it affects legitimate uses as well, such as encrypted email, or ISO torrents of Linux distros. The providers have to decide on what they're going to offer customers, either the full package or limited use bandwidth and charge accordingly. There aren't too many countries that charge you $100 for Internet access while limiting your bandwidth and throttling ports.
Right now the solution is a VPN or SSH, paying a monthly fee to get full use (or close) of your Internet, premium priced, subscription.
Score: 0
There is no choice...
...and then he goes on to list two of them.
That's rich.
Perhaps you meant, by your standards, neither choice is valid (which by no means implies a lack of choice for folks with more practical and realistic standards)?
Score: 0
Yep, all two of them. That's rich!
C'mon you've got to be kidding me. You call that a choice? I call that a monopoly. Also, DSL is not available and hasn't been for quite some time in many residential areas. The fact is there is only one choice for most and that is one cable provider, charging 2 and 3x the price for the same service offered in other countries. Yep, my standards are set too high.
Realistic?--What 56k?--On today's Internet?
Score: 0
"You call that a choice?"
Yes, option 1 or option 2.
"I call that a monopoly."
Find yerself a dictionary. It ain't.
Look, it sucks, I'm not disagreeing with that in the least. it's not like I'm saying you guys are living in the lap of High-speed luxury. But let's try and keep the rhetoric to a minimum, eh? It is not a monopoly unless it is controlled by one company, or entity. Now, if the government paid for the lines with your tax money and is dictating pricing for access or "ownership" of those lines to the companies selling you access, then, with a little stretching, you might be able to get away with calling it a government run monopoly.
It sounds like a lot of the whining going on in the states, which is why my reaction is the way it is (re: tough sh*t), but it seems you guys have more problems (than just a lack of choice regarding high-speed internet. It sound like the entire telco infrastructre was screwed from the beginning.
Score: 0
Okay, no problem, I can accept that. I was being a little sarcastic, even though it didn't come across that way, mostly due to anger directed at the ISPs.
What I 'think' the real problem is, is over-subscribing. So, going after encrypted ports is an excuse to throttle ports, thus trying to play catch-up with the bandwidth. However, this is pure speculation.
Score: 0
Bingo.
The cable companies lines carry a set amount of bandwidth that gates shared from the central office (or hub) to the subscribers. For years that (at least in the US) have over-sold that bandwidth, betting on the fact that no-one would be actually using it all, much less enough people using enough of it to make it so others couldn't achieve full speeds.
Well, it bit them in the ass. Because with P2P, video downloads, VoIP, and a plethora of other bandwidth hogging technologies, they are quickly running out of bandwidth. Instead of admitting fault, building out more infrastructure, increasing capacity and doign the "right" thing, they are trying to bandaid the issue by shaping the traffic to weed out the worst 'offenders'.
Now, I have no real problem with this as currently, the worst offenders are little better than thieves (notice I didn't actually call them thieves). But, the time will come shortly when other, much more legitimate uses will fill that space, and the band-aid will not last for long.
They need to build out and increase capacity or tier and limit the service. But first, and foremost, they need to stop selling more bandwidth than they have available.
Score: 0
The ISP has the right to do whatever the hell they want to their customers as long as you have choice. And you ALWAYS have choice. Buy a T1 if you want 24/7 full-speed upstream+downstream. Anything else (cable..DSL) MEANS YOU ARE GETTING A SHARED DATA LINE AND GOTTA BEHAVE LIKE A GOOD BOY OR GET THROTTLED DOWN/KICKED OFF.
Score: 0
If by always you mean a choice between Sympatico and none then that is no choice at all. I don't know about the US or where you live but here they've dipped into the public coffers for "grants" and loans secured by that same public. For our town it was a very high priced dialup until it came to light that a T1 was in town for a while already and being used by the banks and the local mine. If not for the people finding out that they SHOULD have access to better and demanding such, having already paid for it, we'd still likely be on dialup where the greatest profits were. The crown corporation structure here makes anything to do with the internet impossible without Sasktel/Sympatico's blessings and cooperation and even those who get a nod anywhere in the province (finally competition!!!) are subject to bandwidth limitations by Sasktel itself who maintains total control of things within the borders. (oops, so much for the competiton...)
As for buying a T1, you have access to such? Must be nice. We have 28-40 up and 250-400 down (depending on traffic) but we do pay what the exchange students have told us is a sDSL price for a static IP so maybe that's almost the same thing and we should count our blessings... yeah right.
If there IS a choice that has never taken from you to sell back to you OK then but when there's no such thing and you're looking at paying a premium for using what effectively you bought in the first place, you have every right to scream blue murder.
Oh and quit assuming everywhere else with access to the blue nothing is the same as where you live.
Score: 0
"As for buying a T1, you have access to such?"
Call your phone company. Unless you're in an apartment, a fractional T1 is actually not that much more expensive (monthly) than internet access. The set-up fee usually runs high (generally over $2000), but they are running a line directly to your home.
We did this about 10-15 years ago (have since stopped the service) back when broadband was not an option and dial-up was getting pricey.
Seriously, you're acting like you have some innate "right" to cheap, high-speed internet access. I haven't looked, but I bet you it's not mentioned once in the Canadian Constitution.
Score: 0
" Unless you're in an apartment, a fractional T1 is actually not that much more expensive (monthly) than internet access."
It appears that you do not live in Canada. The best price I was ever able to find for a T1 line $400 dollars (CND) per month, on a two year signed contract. We in Canada do not have the option on signing these contracts since most telephone "wire" is owned by Bell.
Score: 0
We still have homes 100 meters from the edge of town who have a choice of 60' of tower for wireless or dialup. The last time we asked about a fractional T1, we were told "not a chance" so I'd think it was still a no-go. As for "right" nope but this is Saskatchewan and as the crowns used our money for seed and repaid in rates someone from Ontario once read and thought the bill should have included the word "vigorish", it would be nice to see a little something come back this way.
Score: 0
"It appears that you do not live in Canada."
You're right. I don't.
"The best price I was ever able to find for a T1 line $400 dollars (CND) per month, on a two year signed contract."
That sucks.
"We in Canada do not have the option on signing these contracts since most telephone "wire" is owned by Bell."
The guy below (poeg?) just said the lines were paid for by taxes. Paid for by the Gov (with your money) and owned by Bell? That's a mess.
Looks like you've got a lot more to worry about than high-speed internet. :)
Score: 0
I'm Canadian.
We've long known about this nonsense. Rogers does it too.
We also know how to get around it.
*yawn*
Next...
Next...
Score: 0
IF YOUR PROVIDER DOES THIS YOU HAVE TO CANCEL AND CHANGE ISP's. THIS CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED... Why are you paying for "unlimited" internet and getting this??? In fact you can sue them because they are not providing what they are sell you the customer!!! You are only sending home video's to your family around the world for god sake!!
Score: 0
That's very clever and all, but it's hard to change ISPs when one company has a monopoly over the phone lines and another one has the cable lines, and they're both filtering traffic. Don't you think switching would be the first thing everyone would do? The problem is that most people (both in the USA and in Canada) don't have a whole lot of choice. They either have no other service to switch to, or the competition is playing dirty as well.
I live in eastern Ontario, Canada. Here you have two choices. You can get cable internet through Cogeco, which is not unlimited at all. It's high priced and has monthly bandwidth caps. Or you can get DSL from several companies. The problem with DSL is that, no matter who you get it from, it's really coming from Bell Sympatico. All these ISPs are simply reselling Sympatico bandwidth. I believe a lot of other people in various areas of the country are facing a similar problem.
Score: 0
"but it's hard to change ISPs when one company has a monopoly over the phone lines and another one has the cable lines"
Both are Service providers providing information services. Both are competing. This is not a monopoly.
It's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs and Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers.
Score: 0
I wish I could call you clever, but that would be cruel to those who actually are...instead, I'll call you "cute", because your "clever" remarks and use of emotional pandering vs. things like actual facts is just that...."cute".
Like the comment below: two companies offering competing services does not a monopoly make. That's fact, not the emotional rhetoric of which you seem so fond.
Want to argue? Argue facts, without throwing in BS like "monopoly" which one can only assume is a lame attempt to get people riled up because "Monopolies are bad." Unless, that is, you don't have anything else...
Score: 0
Not surprising. Bell Sympatico is also not a great deal. I'm not sure if Primus is guilty of this same practice, but even if they are their rates are a fraction of Sympatico's. Maybe it's a good time to switch! Primus has a 512 unlimited connection and a basic landline for $35 a month, no rental fees, connection fees, or network fees. Sweet!
Score: 0
Google also censored websites
http://infowars.com/arti...rorstorm_censorship.htm
http://www.infowars.com/...le_caught_censoring.htm
Score: 0
A fellow on the linked forum asks an excellent question. Anyone know? More than a few mom-and-pop ISPs in Canada use Bell.
"Here's a question. The throttling er.. I mean packet shaping, is this for all users of Bell's network? If I subscribe to another DSL based ISP (which all use Bell's lines) will my traffic be subject to shaping?"
Score: 0
No way of knowing. It can be configured on a massive scale to shape all traffic down as finely as only shaping one protocol from one app on one network (while monitoring the traffic from all networks that use that pipe).
Google sandvine. It's very likely what is being used. In many cases, even encrypting the connection won't help.
Score: 0
I'm currently with 3web who uses Bell lines, and I'm currently downloading stuff with BT at over 100KB/s.
Score: 0
Only 100? That sucks.
Score: 0
Sympatico is part of the phone company here. Enough said....
Score: 0
So all of you who say you don't care about net neutrality, don't care if your data is filtered, shaped, delayed, or even blocked right?
...thats what I thought. Start caring about what the ISP is doing with your data.
Score: 0
One: I won't buy a plan that blocks the data I intend to transfer. Problem solved.
Two: If the data I need/want/use gets to me faster, hell yes.
Start caring? I do. That's why I want VoIP, Online Storage, and Online Applications (collaboration) given higher priority.
All the leeches can rot. :)
Want to keep the internet how it was intended to be?
*laughs*
Okay. No more binaries, no more P2P, no more graphics, no more entertainment. The internet was intended to be a global mind-share for research and education. Careful what you wish for.
Score: 0
Again, very clever.
YOU may have a choice in the matter, but many people do not. When all ISPs available in your area filter certain traffic, you have little choice but to "buy" that plan. So no, problem not solved. Also, it's not like these ISPs disclose what traffic will be blocked when you subscribe to their service. In fact, they're likely to vehemently deny any form of filtering, even if it's flat out lying.
Score: 0
What do people usually do when a companies flat-out lies to them in selling a product?
They sue.
"Little choice" != no choice. Sucks to be anyone in Rural USA, but too damned bad. Hopefully the reasons you've chosen to move outside the city (or remain outside the city) are wroth the trade-off. (Hint: They usually are)
Choice exists. The problem is twofold: One is that people seem to think "the web" is a necessity, which is wrong. And two, they also seem to think that the company that paid to have the infrastructure laid down (or bough the company that did) doesn't have a right to recover costs on that infrastructure and instead should open it up to their competitors, which is absurd.
Have a problem with ConCast? Fine. Dump 'em. Don't want to? Well, I guess it's not that much of an issue for you then, is it?
Score: 0
So if the phone company being THE ISP as in "total control of all the fiber" also nails VoIP and your off site storage for conflicting with their business model in any way shape or form you'll sit there and smugly eat your crow? Yeah I thought not. But they wouldn't? What's the corporation beholding to first and foremost?
Score: 0
???
Isn't this pretty much what you have now *without* the VoIP? One company?
Really, I mean, how many phone companies serve your area?
If that happened to me? I'd either dump the provider for a different one if the option existed, use their VoIP, or dump VoIP all together.
This is how it works now for landlines, why should VoIP be any different? Because you want it to be? How special....
Score: 0
So what's the case when the tax payer himself has paid for the lines? Might not have been the case in the USA which ends at that dotted line only visible from space but it certainly has been the case here. In Canada you'll see the same with gas & oil as well as water and power though water is on the municipal scale.
As for suing a crown corp, start with the knowledge that recovering any court costs will be impossible and that they have access to an ever renewing income stream which starts as a trickle from our own wallets. Suing in the states is easy peasy but this whole article is NOT about the United States of Everywhere.
Score: 0
Sucks to live in Canada, doesn't it? :)
Score: 0
Meh..
So long as they are expanding capacity, leveling the playing field doesn't seem too harsh. I have tried and tried, but I just can't seem to be the least bit sympathetic to the folks hoarding the bandwidth downloading "warez". As far as I am concerned, they can be throttled to dial-up. They can call it "01d 5k001".
Meanwhile, I'm quite happy with my non-throttled DSL, where I don't have to worry about the over-sold, under-bid shared-bandwidth nightmare that cable users must now face.
Sure, the tech may be older, the rural areas may have to go without, or with slower speeds, but I'm getting 9meg/month for $40. Screw 'em.
-Lunch sucked.
--That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
Score: 0