braggd
join:2007-01-06
Ottawa, ON
| Rogers Throttling and new CRTS Decision
I was reading the article posted here »Geist Weighs In On NN Decision - Toronto Star Column over in the TekSavvy board.
If I understand how the Rogers throttling works this has significant implications for them. My understanding from what I have read here is once Rogers triggers throttling, not really sure what the triggers are aside from P2P, it will then throttle all traffic on your line.
Based on what I have read on other users experiences, this includes all traffic, regardless of protocol, port, speed, etc. Specifically, VoIP, streaming, etc are all throttled if throttling is on. Thus, it would seem as though the Rogers throttle would fall afoul of the prohibition against throttling of time sensitive data.
However, the details on the Rogers throttle seem much thinner than the Bell throttle. But, also based on this current decision, Rogers would be required to make specific statements on throttling practices. This would allow rogers user to better manage how they use the service to mitigate the impact of the throttle.
Finally, what is less clear is how this decision would impact Rogers choice to throttle all encrypted traffic. Since, by definition, Rogers would not be able to determine the type of use that the encrypted traffic is being used for. Thus, they would not be able to differentiate between say, an SSH terminal session, or an encrypted VoIP connection from an encrypted P2P link, or SSH tunnel, etc.
So, since they are prohibited from throttling time sentitive traffic, would that mean that Rogers would effectively be prevented from blanked throttling of encrypted data? |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by braggd  :So, since they are prohibited from throttling time sentitive traffic, would that mean that Rogers would effectively be prevented from blanked throttling of encrypted data? That's certainly my hope. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Blanket throttling is no longer acceptable ... there's nothing special in regard to encrypted traffic. Time sensitive and encrypted are not synonymous: in the overall scheme of things there's probably not a lot more time sensitive traffic in the encrypted data streams as the unencrypted! Of course, that will also throw up the question of what is time sensitive traffic/ |
|
elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON
| The problem is the consumer has to complain... is Joe Executive who's VPN is not working, or very slow going to connect the dots and say it's Rogers throttling?
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, pleas |
|
Croaker
join:2009-10-01
Ottawa ON | Yes, but now the terms and conditions of such ITMP (i.e. throttling) has to known to the customer. It's better than what we have now. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to sbrook
said by sbrook :Blanket throttling is no longer acceptable ... there's nothing special in regard to encrypted traffic. However, throttling all encrypted traffic may not be considered to be targeted enough to pass the new rules if it's only a portion of the encrypted traffic that's shown to be an issue. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | That's a case of "If you think the CRTC will actually make that stand after you file a case with enough proof" |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON | Since there's no actual law on this, it's all up to interpretation and the CRTC can pick and choose whatever case they want. It's more of a voluntary framework. |
|
static416
join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by mlerner :Since there's no actual law on this, it's all up to interpretation and the CRTC can pick and choose whatever case they want. It's more of a voluntary framework. So when, if ever, are we expecting the ISPs to react to this? When am I going to get a letter explaining why my bittorrent upload is throttled to zero 24/7? |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Rogers are probably saying "It was in place already so we don't have to tell anyone" |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to static416
said by static416 :So when, if ever, are we expecting the ISPs to react to this? When am I going to get a letter explaining why my bittorrent upload is throttled to zero 24/7? They are required to publish information on what is already in place within 30 days of the decision. I don't believe they are required to send notification to users when they do - they just have to put it somewhere "clear" on their website.
Expect it to go up at 11:59pm, Nov 22 at the earliest. |
|
Croaker
join:2009-10-01
Ottawa ON | Are you sure about this? They don't need to add ITMP to service terms and conditions?
Simply posting on a website whose content is already difficult to find is enough? |
|
static416
join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to bt
said by bt :They are required to publish information on what is already in place within 30 days of the decision. I don't believe they are required to send notification to users when they do - they just have to put it somewhere "clear" on their website. Expect it to go up at 11:59pm, Nov 22 at the earliest. Oh ok. So does that mean we all start fling complaints on the 23rd? |
|
haterogers
@rogers.com | reply to braggd
Well I upgraded to the Extreme Plus and the bastards still throttle my connection. Now though they openly admit they throttle connections. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | They admitted they throttled years ago ... but if you asked, and you didn't ask the right question, you'd get an obfuscated answer. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Croaker
said by Croaker :Are you sure about this? They don't need to add ITMP to service terms and conditions? Apparently they only need to reference the online disclosures in the service terms and conditions.
From the CRTC ruling:
...disclose to their retail customers, clearly and prominently on their websites, information related to their technical ITMPs.(12) The ISP must also reference its online disclosures in relevant marketing materials, customer contracts, and terms of service.
(12) Such information, or links to it, should be provided on web pages that describe the actual retail Internet service offerings; for example, where speeds are described, there should be links to information describing how ITMPs may impact these services. |
|
ModdTaco
join:2008-09-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by bt :said by Croaker :Are you sure about this? They don't need to add ITMP to service terms and conditions? Apparently they only need to reference the online disclosures in the service terms and conditions. From the CRTC ruling: ...disclose to their retail customers, clearly and prominently on their websites, information related to their technical ITMPs.(12) The ISP must also reference its online disclosures in relevant marketing materials, customer contracts, and terms of service.
(12) Such information, or links to it, should be provided on web pages that describe the actual retail Internet service offerings; for example, where speeds are described, there should be links to information describing how ITMPs may impact these services. I can't even find that in the terms and conditions. They hid it well. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by ModdTaco :I can't even find that in the terms and conditions. They hid it well. As said earlier in this thread, they have 30 days from the decision to have it in place. |
|
slaman
join:2007-02-22
Toronto, ON | reply to sbrook
I was told by several customer service reps that no traffic shaping, throttling, or limiting of speed for p2p traffic was in place at Rogers.
I laughed, and said they were wrong. |
|
Xerom62
join:2004-01-28 | reply to braggd
No apparent throttling here. This is in a former shaw area that was historically a major problem zone for congestion. |
|
