Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

thetyee.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 269 posts

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#251

Post by Swannie »

gregsadetsky wrote: post #250
Swannie wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How can anyone manage with 25 GB per month?" Very, very happily thanks. I used to "manage" quite happily on 1.5GB/month (Wireless in Australia). Now I'm in the UK, I'm doing about 25 (thanks to BBC's streaming, which I could cut out a lot of I was PVRing more). It would only become a pain when I want to download something like a VM image.

I didn't mean that to be a snark! :-) It was simply a(n emotional?) reaction (has been said many times, etc.) to the reality of bandwidth being reduced in Canada over the past... 15 years. I used to have the-nicest-DSL-in-high-school, provided by Bell, in the late 90's -- 74$/month for 2 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, unlimited traffic. Today, their "Fibe" offering (it sounds like "Fiber" as in FTTH! but it isn't! %^&^%$#!!)…

Yep, overselling for the lose I'm afraid.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#252

Post by mustpax »

ergo98 wrote: post #235
ZachPruckowski wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The parent sits at 38 points while being almost entirely wrong." Do you have any evidence that he's wrong, an argument why he's wrong, or even a different assertion of the facts? This has actually been a fairly fact-filled, low-whine conversation, with reason-filled arguments. It's a topic (proper regulation of state-granted monopolies) that goes back hundreds of years (to American Colonial times, at least). The fa…

Do you have any evidence that he's wrong, an argument why he's wrong, or even a different assertion of the facts? This is a futile discussion. It is an embarrassment for HN and, honestly, an embarrassment for the Canadian tech community. Download caps are way too low, no doubt about it. Providers are protecting their own self interests by undermining businesses like Netflix, no doubt about it. However that is an enti…

Download caps are way too low, no doubt about it. Providers are protecting their own self interests by undermining businesses like Netflix, no doubt about it. However that is an entirely separate discussion.

It is not a separate discussion, is THE discussion right here. For the life of me, I can't figure out what discussion you're trying to have or what it is that you find so disgusting/disgraceful.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#253

Post by ergo98 »

mustpax wrote: post #252
ergo98 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence that he's wrong, an argument why he's wrong, or even a different assertion of the facts? This is a futile discussion. It is an embarrassment for HN and, honestly, an embarrassment for the Canadian tech community. Download caps are way too low, no doubt about it. Providers are protecting their own self interests by undermining businesses like Netflix, no doubt about it. However that is an enti…

Download caps are way too low, no doubt about it. Providers are protecting their own self interests by undermining businesses like Netflix, no doubt about it. However that is an entirely separate discussion. It is not a separate discussion, is THE discussion right here. For the life of me, I can't figure out what discussion you're trying to have or what it is that you find so disgusting/disgraceful.

>It is not a separate discussion, is THE discussion right here.

"GAS" providers like TekSavvy are not DSLAM terminators -- they use Bell's final mile, plus their DSLAM, plus their Nexxia network, etc. THAT is how they are vulnerable to this sort of action.

Providers who have their own DSLAM equipment, which Bell has to host for them, have no such limits: Bell can't shape their packets, nor can they impose any pricing being the CRTC regulated last-mile charge. That has nothing to do with this recent decision.

People are pretending that we're talking about the latter when we're actually talking about the former, which is all this applies to. Did anyone ever wonder how TekSavvy -- some micro operation in Chatham -- magically became a Canada-wide DSL provider? Hint: Because they aren't.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#254

Post by pyre »

Swannie wrote: post #229
pyre wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here in a suburb of Toronto I've had top-notch, > leading-the-bandwidth (15Mbps around the clock) high > speed for a low cost for almost a decade. Toronto is the "New York City" of Canada. Do you look to New York City to be an exact replication of how the entire US looks, works, and functions? This reeks of "Windows never gave me a BSOD therefore all of the people that say they've had a BSOD are lying"-type of argu…

Lets clarify a few things. The ruling last year: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-802.htm The result of consultation on the ruling, and dates for its application: http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm This affects the "Gateway Access Services (GAS)" customers. Wholesale Bell customers. (Product details here http://www.wholesale.bell.ca/pdfs/GASDSL.pdf ) And "Third Party Internet Access (TPIA)" cus…

What is the section between the DSLAM and PoP? Why does Bell need to charge usage-based on that section seeing as the peering itself is not the issue? Some more explanation of that part of the diagram would be much appreciated. :)

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#256

Post by Swannie »

pyre wrote: post #254
Swannie wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets clarify a few things. The ruling last year: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-802.htm The result of consultation on the ruling, and dates for its application: http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm This affects the "Gateway Access Services (GAS)" customers. Wholesale Bell customers. (Product details here http://www.wholesale.bell.ca/pdfs/GASDSL.pdf ) And "Third Party Internet Access (TPIA)" cus…

What is the section between the DSLAM and PoP? Why does Bell need to charge usage-based on that section seeing as the peering itself is not the issue? Some more explanation of that part of the diagram would be much appreciated. :)

Umm... that's the bit between your local exchange (Central Office) and the nearest Bell exchange (Central Office) to where the ISP actually hosts its equipment. (In the case of the GAS, that equipment is routers that can talk PPP/L2TP, or something close, as I can't find real technical details on GAS). OK, so it is more complicated than this as there are BRAS - broadband remote access/aggregation servers - along the way that collect the DSLAM traffic together into ATM links, and the split out aggregated traffic for the ISPs. (Basically the internal Bell ATM packet network).

This is Bell's transit network. Whilst technically the UBB is on the individuals and not what is transited, it is essentially what is being billed for.

Bell is claiming that it's links on the transit network are being crippled by heavy users. This may actually be true during busy hour. But in reality this shouldn't happen, as Bell can increase the bandwidth of most these relatively cheaply, as most are fiber. There are probably a few 100 that aren't fibered, causing the biggest problem.

But OK. The more I read about this, the clearer it becomes that the problem doesn't really exist at the moment. This is Bell's way of sabotaging the GAS product that it has been forced to sell by the regulator.

I hope this is a move that will force the independents to group together to purchase their own DSLAMS and transit. And then Bell faces much stiffer competition. In the UK, BT is facing real and consistent competition, thanks to our regulator getting tough in the last few years. BT now even have to allow competitors to lease it's ducting to roll their own fiber.

EDIT: I found this: http://www.vaxination.ca/crtc/ADSL_intro.pdf

Which suggests that the only bit that could conceivably have contention, which the wholesale customer does not control, is the connection between the DSLAM and the BAS. From the BAS's to their handoff PoP/CO, they have to pay for these "AHSSPI/AHSSL (Aggregated High-Speed Service Provider Interface/Link)" in 1gbps increments.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#257

Post by pyre »

Swannie wrote: post #241
pyre wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue with respect to Bell providing IPTV should be framed around whether they should be allowed to enter that market at all seeing as they have an unfair advantage over competitors. If ISPs can enter any market and just under-cut the existing players, then it we're basically stating that any content-provider on the internet needs to also be an ISP just in order to compete with the players that are just w…

I don't follow your logic. Bell cannot enter the TV market (one it's already in, albeit Satellite TV), because Netflix can't enter the ISP market? I'll think you'll find that Netflix can enter that market if they so desire. Bell are abusing a monopoly position? No, they are exploiting efficiencies of scale. Surely Rogers and Shaw, who provide cable TV and Internet are stiff competition in this area?!?

The idea is that Bell is the 'gatekeeper' to the internet for their customers. By hiking up their internet rates to make it more expensive to do something like stream NetFlix while at the same time introducing their own competing product that is exempt from those charges it comes close to (and probably is) using their position in one market to leverage another. My contention is that ISPs and content-providers should be required to be separate because there are multiple conflicts of interest there.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#258

Post by vacri »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #204
vacri wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not at the moment - I perhaps phrased it poorly - but the cost of the in-ground copper wire is but one part of the costs of an ISP - datacenters, call centres, exchanges + dslams, specialist staff, CEO's bonus pay, so on and so forth. To paint the cost of DSL as almost entirely maintenance of the in-ground copper is nonsense.

Well, that's going into the company to provide you with that in-ground wire. It's in the base cost, not affected by how much data you use, which was the main point. Marginal data is cheap.

So you're claiming that the only part of managing throughput is the in-ground wires? That ISPs don't use network admins to manage load congestion? That ISPs don't have to purchase new hardware and other capacity to handle increased bandwidth consumption?

Do you think all ISPs are running off the ancient network equipment they were originally set up with back in the day?

I'm honestly surpised that on /Hacker News/ of all places, so many people thing that the only thing contributing to their bandwidth cost is in-ground copper.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#259

Post by lsc »

vacri wrote: post #258
Dylan16807 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's going into the company to provide you with that in-ground wire. It's in the base cost, not affected by how much data you use, which was the main point. Marginal data is cheap.

So you're claiming that the only part of managing throughput is the in-ground wires? That ISPs don't use network admins to manage load congestion? That ISPs don't have to purchase new hardware and other capacity to handle increased bandwidth consumption? Do you think all ISPs are running off the ancient network equipment they were originally set up with back in the day? I'm honestly surpised that on /Hacker News/ of…

Bandwidth costs money. Nobody says it doesn't. However, the amount of money 5Mbps of bandwidth costs is trivial compared to the cost of maintaining a separate copper pair to your house.

At /my scale/ I can buy bandwidth at around $1 per megabit/sec. 1Mbps is, uh, around 320 gigabytes of data. Even at half utilization that's less than a penny per gigabyte, and any but the smallest of local ISPs are going to dwarf my bandwidth usage. This is the sort of market where cost scales down quite a lot as you scale up, so I would bet quite a lot of money that comcast pays less than I do.

sure, if I wanted to double my usage, I'd have to buy some new network equipment, and spend some network admin time, but generally speaking the cost of your network equipment (at least at my scale) is fairly small compared to the cost of buying the transit in the first place. It certainly doesn't double the cost of bandwidth; and even if it did, bandwidth would still be cheaper than the local loop to your customer's home.

So yeah, uh, your average dsl is what five megabits/sec on a really good day? are you seriously trying to tell me that you can buy a copper loop for less than five bucks a month?

(Actually, I've been in the industry all my life and I've never been involved in buying copper loops; I guess it's possible they are that cheap; If they are, and I find out (oy, the costs of almost everything in this industry are guarded like state secrets. It's such a pain in the ass.) I'll start a DSL ISP. but I'd be very surprised if that were the case. )

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#260

Post by JimmyL »

forensic wrote: post #231
cal5k wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is EXACTLY what regulatory capture is all about. Bell knows the game and played it masterfully. Ask for the moon - ask for really ridiculous things, but expect to only get half of those things. The CRTC, wanting to seem "reasonable" and "balanced", meets Bell halfway. Unfortunately, halfway towards Bell's ridiculous agenda is still absolutely terrible for consumers, a perspective that the CRTC has utterly failed…

The fact that the CRTC is stacked with former Bell and Rogers employees and NO ONE to represent the public or small ISPs also helps. The CRTC is just a stooge pretending the play the part of opposition, while they are actually a collaborator.

Are they? From http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/about/commissioners.htm, the backgrounds of the Commissioners:

von Finckelstein (Chairman) was the head of the Competition bureau and implemented NAFTA.

Katz (Vice-Chair, Telecommunications) was at Bell and Rogers until 2001.

Morin (Secretary-General) was a career bureaucrat.

Cugini (Ontario) was with Alliance Atlantis, a film and TV company.

Lamarre (Quebec) was with the CBC.

Duncan (Atlantic) comes from various small players in the Cable TV industry.

Molnar (MB and SK) comes from Customer Service and Regulatory Affairs at SaskTel.

Menzies (Alberta) ran the Calgary Herald, a large newspaper.

Denton was on the board of CIRA and was the solicitor of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (the industry group of independent ISPs).

Patrone, Morin, and Poirier were journalists.

Simpson was an ad exec.

If you're counting obvious (perceived) biases there, you'd say Katz is representing Big Telco and Denton is representing independent ISPs. Molnar would count as a half-vote for Big Telco (as SaskTel is an ILEC), but it's a minor one. The rest, as I see it, have no obvious perceived biases in this case.

As for the high-ranking staff, that's a lot harder to figure our their backgrounds - although most of them should be civil service positions, which means they're relatively impartial.

If we check out our lobbying disclosures (always interesting when it comes to this), we see that in the past year there have been 18 registered conversations between lobbyists and the CRTC on the issue of Telecommunications - and of those, I'd guess that the two from Bell and one from SaskTel were probably focused on Internet-related issues, whereas the Quebecor/Globalive/Shaw/CMPA ones weren't.

Post reply on HN