RSSOutcry over BitTorrent blocking stretches to Canada
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published May 13, 2008, 6:47 PM
Canadians are joining Americans in their outcry over ISPs allegedly blocking BitTorrent and other P2P applications. Now, two Canadian groups have now asked the privacy commissioner to investigate the activities of Bell Canada.
The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Internet Clinic (CIPPIC) is accusing Bell Canada of failing to obtain consent from its Internet customers around the use of deep-packet inspection (DPI), a technology capable of reporting on how subscribers are using their Internet connections.
Bell is employing DPI to find and limit the use of BitTorrent and other P2P applications, which it claims are congesting its network.
The Ottawa-based CIPPIC has now asked Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart to examine how Bell and other Canadian ISPs -- including Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications Inc., Cogeco Inc. and Eastlink -- are using so-called "traffic shaping" technologies such as DPI.
Comprised mostly of lawyers and law students from the University of Ottawa, CIPPIC now alleges that Bell Canada has failed to show its network is congested and that limiting P2P applications is necessary. The group also accuses Bell Canada of violating Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
DPI does have its fans. In one recent report, industry analysts at the Yankee Group argued that DPI can be an invaluable tool for ISPs to prioritize traffic based on what the customer has paid for, and to established "tiered services" along the lines of the old "platinum," "gold," and "silver" model.
The right to provide tiered services is the current crux of the net neutrality debate in the US Congress.
But other advocates worry that ISPs could abuse these technologies. In April, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers -- representing 55 smaller ISPs who rent portions of Bell's network -- entered a complaint that Bell Canada is invading users' privacy in a document filed with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
In the US, during FCC hearings held in February in Massachusetts, US ISP Comcast argued that technology used on its network "does not block any Web site, application, or Web protocol." But David L. Cohen, Comcast's executive VP, did admit to "a limited form of network management," in which requests for file uploads are "delayed" but not "blocked," and only when periods of high network traffic and other conditions prevail.
After a public outcry over Comcast's apparent use of hired "seat warmers" to keep its opponents from attending the FCC hearing, New York State Attorney General Andrew C. Cuomo reportedly subpoenaed Comcast's records to explore how Comcast is handling P2P file sharing through programs such as BitTorrent.
How to configure utorrrent:
http://technicianspot.blogspot.com/
Score: 0
|There are two companies in Ontario, Canada; Bell & Rogers. Both sell bandwidth to customers and business. The problem lies not only with P2P, but throttling of all encrypted ports. Even worse, they do the same to business, that is, independent service providers are throttled as well.
Case in point, TechSavvy ISP. They are at the forefront of a battle with Bell. The CRTC has just ruled in favour of Bell. In short, Canada will be in the dark ages before long as far as the Internet is concerned. But, impeding a countries entire communications industry will lead to certain disaster beyond that of the Internet.
So, this story goes beyond that of P2P. It's a national nightmare, where politicians have been bought and paid for and corporations erode the basic need for information technology.
Score: 0
|I'm sure p2p is the culprit! I'd say Porn is still by far the most traffic. Perhaps they should put a cap on Porn? I'd love to see that one fly. There'd be outcries of free speech violations. The freedom to wank baby. We know how to live. Anyhow, is anyone still with Bell or Rogers? Please. There are much better options out there. Caveat Emptor.
Score: 0
|I know you're just venting, but let me explain:
P2P = protocol. They can throttle this baby without having to inspect the packets or invade privacy.
Porn would require that they inspect each packet, block sites, basically remove any hope the ISP had of remaining under safe-harbor provisions, protecting them from RIAA and MPAA lawsuits.
Score: 0
|Well Too, you seem to have this one pretty much handled...
It never ceases to amaze me regarding the ire so quickly expressed by those who haven't a clue about which they spout - yet so adamantly hold their spurious views...
One can only imagine what might be accomplished if these folks used just a fraction of the energy they have to simply educate themselves regarding what they spout...
Where is Spitzer when they need him? (Don't tell me, I think we know!) ROFLMAO!
Score: 0
|do you live in canada? in the capital, ottawa, they are the two choices for high speed internet and bell barely qualifies.
Score: 0
|Like any other utility, why not charge by the amount of bandwidth you use? If someone wants to transfer 400 gigs a month on P2P let them pay for it.
Score: 0
|They do pay for it. They pay for what is advertised, unlimited internet.
Additionally, as soon as tiered internet becomes reality you will see heavy users pay more for their internet access. I very much doubt you will see average users pay significantly less, which means that tiering won't help the average user and ISPs will make more profit. Lots more profit.
Score: 0
|Where I'm at in Canada, shaw already has a 3 tiered system, where you pay a smaller amount for a slower connection and more for each "nitro" or "boost" or whatever you want to call it add-on that bumps your speed up a bit. This makes the price disparity between the lowest connection tier to the highest somewhere around $60/month already.
Score: 0
|Right, that disparity being more than I actually pay for TimeWarner / RoadRunner cable, which is pretty fast.
Tiered ISPs are price gouging.
Score: 0
|. They pay for what is advertised, unlimited internet.
Show me.
Show me one ad that promises unlimited internet without a disclaimer regarding max speeds and line-dependencies. Show me one ISP that does not limit your access in the ToS.
...
Didn't think so.
You can hate it, you can say it sucks, but pulling the wool over your own eyes isn't going to help anyone.
ditionally, as soon as tiered internet becomes reality you will see heavy users pay more for their internet access. I very much doubt you will see average users pay significantly less, which means that tiering won't help the average user and ISPs will make more profit. Lots more profit.
Sure. It does suck that those using the least will probably not get much of a break, if any. But why shouldn't those using the most pay *more* than those not using the majority?
Score: 0
|You cannot say ISP's as of a year ago did not offer unlimited downloads etc. My ISP did, they changed their TOS which they have the right to do but were we informed? No, Hell they claim the right not to inform anybody.
Score: 0
|What ISP? Documentation?
Aside from the fact I never said anything about download caps...
As for "limiting access" which is what I did comment on, that's covered in the ToS under hosting a server, which BT does. That's been in the ToS of every residential ISP since Dial-up.
Score: 0
|http://www.twtelecom.com/
Unlimited, business ISP. I doubt you'll find it on their site, but it's on our contract and the only thing really limiting us is it isn't 100% guaranteed bandwidth" and we can't do illegal activity (fairly standard.)
Score: 0
|Nobody uses more bandwidth on a DSL connection than I do.
Score: 0
|Nobody is more of an arrogant prick than you, either.
Score: 0
|The interesting thing here is:
Is this constitutional?
They are limiting the service of those who want it the most, and giving preferential treatment to those who play by their rules.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Did you read that?
giving preferential treatment to those who play by their rules.
So they don't limit users who don't break the ToS and *do* limit those who do?
*gasp*
The humanity!
/sarcasm
Score: 0
|Can they honestly put in the ToS that they can pick and choose which protocols they limit traffic for? Isn't that discrimination against certain types of users?
It's not like I actually give a damn about this, as it's been in place in the UK for ages, but you just choose a company that doesn't do it. Just wondering.
Score: 0
|how can users use too much bandwidth ?
I have a 10mb line and cannot go above that 10mb speed !
so in essence how can I be choking the network if my isp is "renting" that linespeed to me.
seems ISP's think we all stoopid !
Score: 0
|The 10mbit refers only to speed, not amount of data.
so in essence how can I be choking the network if my isp is "renting" that linespeed to me.
Because you are breaking ToS by running a server?
seems ISP's think we all stoopid !
Well...
Score: 0
|Bittorrent and P2P are congesting our networks, boo f*cking hoo. Yeah, I'm sure P2P is the problem, it couldn't be the high quality content on almost every site these days (video/audio of all types)
Bittorrent and P2P are used for more and more legit purposes these days and should be protected by law against what companies like Comcast did and Bell are doing, its anti-competitive, pretty sure they aren't throttling any traffic coming and going when it comes to content they provide.
Score: 0
|What P2P traffic *do* they provide?
Ahh....none.
P2P is against the ToS of every ISP on the planet. Don't think so? Prove me wrong. Find a ToS that doesn't include a line disallowing servers on all residential connections.
Ya'll can whine and moan about this all you want, but residential connections are not and have never been unlimited. Ever. If you want that, you need a business service.
Score: 0
|FTP Servers = P2P
Score: 0
|I ran a 2003 server on Verizon for a couple of years. I simply got tired of the maintenance. I don't recall having any problems.
Score: 0
|The question these cable companies have to answer is, "how does a technology expressly designed to minimize bandwidth congestion somehow do the opposite..but only on YOUR network?" If they can prove that BT is actually a network hog then maybe they have a leg to stand on - in America no other argument really matters thanks to privacy laws (which are obviously not always enforced in this day and age). It doesn't help that they've already biased the public against themselves by trying to silence opposing viewpoints at every turn.
Score: 0
|There is no question that P2P users use a disproportionately large amount of bandwidth. This has been confirmed by Government agencies in Japan http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1063. Japan has 100 Mbps fiber to the home which is probably 10 times faster than what we have on average here but they're being slammed by P2P-induced congestion. The data from Japan suggests that just 10% of users (using P2P) account for 60% to 90% of all Internet traffic.
The problem is that TCP congestion control is inadequate and something has to be done to fix this imbalance. This is why there are proposals before the IETF to fix TCP http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078. In the mean time, anything that throttles the bandwidth hogs means a fairer distribution of bandwidth.
Score: 0
|Great article (second link) Thanks.
Score: 0
|Canada and the US could only dream of 100mbit connections for common residential use, says something about the state of North American Infrastructure and they are blaming Bittorrent/P2P , On-Demand Services?
Score: 0
|Last year there was a survey that asked users if they prefer a throttling system or pay per quota system.
Some providers were actually considering implementing quota based systems – which is just unheard of in many parts of Asia. To date this hasn’t happened thankfully.
The survey results if I remember were overwhelmingly in favour of a throttling system.
Score: 0
|"The data from Japan suggests that just 10% of users (using P2P) account for 60% to 90% of all Internet traffic."
That statement is so flawed it's almost ridiculous... 100% of the users are paying for a xxxMbit connection, and if the ISP can't provide 100% service to 100% of it's customers 100% of the time then it is false advertising.
If the 90% who don't turn their PCs on for days at a time becomes their excuse/justification for falsely advertising and later invading the privacy of 100% of their paying customers to keep those who don't use their connections to the advertised potential happy, while still continuing such false advertising - then something is really wrong with the whole line of thought.
It's unfortunate the internet and it's client software has evolved faster than ISP companies would like, but such tactics and whitewashing of the truth is just "catching them out" and singling one protocol as the culprit for throttling can and will impact legitimate services that are growing on the peer based method (xbox live is a current example.)
Score: 0
|That statement is so flawed it's almost ridiculous... 100% of the users are paying for a xxxMbit connection,
Aside from the fact that they are, in fact, paying for an "up to" xxmbit connection, the ToS always clearly states that running a server over the residential connection is not allowed. BT acts as a client/server the entire time it is running.
No false advertising, people just can't be bothered to *read* what's on the screen or *listen* to the disclaimers, they just hear the pretty words and tune out the rest. This is very well known in the marketing world and why it is constantly used as a marketing technique. You can cry about it all you want, pick any commercial and they will be more than happy to point out the disclaimer you failed to notice the first time. Point: Don't call it false just because you want it to be. Go ahead and call it misleading, good marketing, whatever, but lying about it doesn't help your case.
Score: 0
|Regardless of whether they are breaking the ToS, he's right that ISP should be able to handle the speeds they advertise. Even if it only says up to XX. Any ISP out there would choke very quickly if ALL the users simultaneously used even 10% of what they are actually paying for.
Score: 0
|even the PSTN network in the U.S, considered the most reliable network ever built, couldn't handle that load. No switched network could. No ethernet network could. It defies physics.
Score: 0
|Toolie, no one wants to hear your rants!
Just go away already!
I can't wait for the day you die in your mothers basement and they have to tear down the place just to get your fat a** out of there and stick you in the ground!!
But wait, maybe they will know your a tool and just bulldoze the place over your fat ass!!
Score: 0
|