Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada The Internet Your Rights Online

CRTC Says Rogers Violating Federal Net Neutrality Rules 165

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the smoke-signals-are-faster dept.
beaverdownunder writes "A Canadian CRTC investigation in partnership with Cisco has found that Rogers Communications has violated federal net-neutrality rules by throttling connections related to P2P applications. Rogers has until noon on February 3rd to reply to the accusations or face a hearing." Quoting the letter sent to Rogers: "On the basis of our evidence to date, any traffic from an unidentified time-sensitive application making use of P2P ports will be throttled resulting in noticeable degradation of such traffic."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CRTC Says Rogers Violating Federal Net Neutrality Rules

Comments Filter:
  • Finally (Score:5, Informative)

    by iONiUM (530420) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:09PM (#38809845) Homepage Journal

    Rogers (and Bell) have been abusing their customers since the beginning, this is just another example. I hope the CRTC sticks it to them, and I really hope this becomes very public. Please share this everywhere, so the hatred towards this duopoly in Canada can grow even more.

    And yes, I use Rogers, because I literally don't have another choice. And they definitely throttle torrents, during "prime" hours, which is apparently 8am-11pm.

    • by stanlyb (1839382)
      Hey, what is going on? Is today the new April.1st?
    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)

      by atlasdropperofworlds (888683) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:14PM (#38809913)

      So does Shaw. I get bizarre behavior with Skype (distortions, connection problems) at non-peak hours. If I run speed test at those times, both my download and upload capacity max out. It's all very annoying. I also have inside information that Shaw has had throttling equipment in for almost 10 years now, and that they do use it.

      • Inside information not withstanding, as a longtime Shaw High-speed customer, (we signed up with "Shaw Wave" when it was first brought into our town in 1998) They told us up front, that excessive use will cause throttling. As Shaw migrated to @Home, It was again mentioned that throttling high-usage accounts would occur. with the caveat that it was once you reached 4 GB of data downloaded per month you'd be throttled down, with your speed refreshed the first of the month, repeat offenders would receive let
        • by sconeu (64226)

          So forget about downloading a Linux ISO?

        • Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

          by phoenix_rizzen (256998) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:51PM (#38810407)

          And it's done on a per-IP basis, not a per-household or per-account basis. Since you get (at least) 2 dynamic IPs per Shaw Internet account, all you have to do is separate your "normal" traffic from your "excessive" traffic.

          For example, we setup to routers at our house, with a switch between them and the cable router. They each get a different IP via DHCP.

          Torrents and other "bandwidth hogs" go through one router. All other traffic goes through the other router.

          That way, when they throttle all traffic through one IP, it doesn't affect our normal web browsing activities.

          • by dgatwood (11270)

            4 GB in a month is not excessive. That's less than the average bandwidth of a 14.4k modem. Remember those?

            Most sane Internet services set their cap at 250 GB these days. A 30 GB cap is considered paltry. 4 GB is... well, the only place that's remotely acceptable is on an untethered cellular phone.

            • by Tanktalus (794810)
              4GB may have been the cap back in 1998. Now, however, I get 50Mbps down, 3Mbps up, and a cap of 450GB per month from Shaw.
            • I started with Shaw. Then Shaw and Roger re-divided, and my account was switched to Rogers. No choice.

              Now, I get 50Mbps down or so (it rarely goes full-speed), but it is enough for Netflix. Bittorrent is throttled.

              Still, I don't have Cable TV, so I can't buy the "top end" internet package... The highest tier I can buy is 150GB/month for $70/month ("Hi-Speed Exteme Plus")

              $5 more for 20GB/month for an overage "guarantee". If I don't buy the "guarantee", I spend $1/GB overage, capped at $50/month.

              Of course, I

          • by tlhIngan (30335)

            And it's done on a per-IP basis, not a per-household or per-account basis. Since you get (at least) 2 dynamic IPs per Shaw Internet account, all you have to do is separate your "normal" traffic from your "excessive" traffic.

            That's unusual. Shaw's throttling is actually applied per-modem, so the entire modem is throttled, not IP (it's easier to do because the CMTS can do it rather than have an upstream router do it). People have split their traffic/changed MACs etc and have verified that their internet stays

        • Their current monthy data allowances start at 60GB for the 2Mbps plan. The 20Mbps plan has a 200GB allowance, and there are a number of truly unlimited plans.

    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:45PM (#38810321)

      RTFA before you get too excited. They do throttle bit torrent, openly, because it is legal for them to do so. FTFA:

      The Telecommunications Act and CRTC regulations allow throttling of peer-to-peer file sharing programs like BitTorrent, but not of time-sensitive internet traffic like video chatting or gaming.

      • by sarkeizen (106737)
        Now we just make BT look like skype traffic.
        • by dkf (304284)

          Now we just make BT look like skype traffic.

          No, you jerk. BT traffic should look like the bulk asynchronous data transfer that it is. You do not need low latency networking for transfer of large files, so don't try to be an asshole by pretending it is anything else as that just encourages ISPs to do deep packet inspection and other wrong things.

          • by thoromyr (673646)

            but this is exactly how bit torrent (and related protocols) survive. They'd be stomped dead by ISPs otherwise. I hate the inefficient and high resource consumption of p2p apps* and although ISPs are rather less affected by this aspect than their customers they *are* affected by the insanely aggressive nature of them. In the fight-to-the-death that bit torrent has started they do everything they can to avoid being controllable at the expense of everything else.

            I recently had occasion to investigate some bit

    • ...unless there are serious repercussions.

      It's no more a victory than a bully who's been caught stealing your lunch money. They won't repay, they won't stop bullying, they just wont' bully you for your lunch money... probably.

      (BTW, Teksavvy is offering cable Internet now. Switch if you can.)

    • Where do you live where you don't have another choice? You should check out Teksavvy. They have both DSL ("wet" and "dry" loop (ie with or without dial tone) DSL options, as well as DOCSIS cable.
      • I'm another /.'er more than happy to recommend TekSavvy. I'm on a 5 MB DSL dry loop. I've been a customer over 3 years w/ service in Vancouver and now Toronto.

        Parent poster can always switch to TekSavvy for Cable high-speed. Uses Rogers, same modem basically, except you use TekSavvy backbone. I haven't tried it though.

    • by Maow (620678)

      And yes, I use Rogers, because I literally don't have another choice. And they definitely throttle torrents, during "prime" hours, which is apparently 8am-11pm.

      Have you looked in to TekSavvy.com? They provide internet over Shaw (& Rogers, I believe) cable connections. Not sure about your area of course.

      According to another post [slashdot.org] to this story, throttling goes away by switching.

      I'm a satisfied TekSavvy (TSI) customer over Shaw's cable infrastructure. Paying less per month than subscribing from Shaw and TSI takes a cut, so Shaw only gets a tiny amount of what they used to when I was their customer. Enough to pay for maintenance, not enough to subsidise their

  • by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdot@uberm00. n e t> on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:10PM (#38809857) Homepage Journal

    From the CRTC, that is. Apparently they didn't get the memo stating who their masters were.

    • CRTC

      Definition:
        acronym for "Captured Regulator of Telephone and Cable"

      Purpose:
      To provide the illusion of a regulatory body for communications in Canada
      by ignoring offences of the companies they regulate while ignoring the needs
      and the will of the people they were meant to protect.

      Status:
      Currently staffed by past and future Bell, Rogers and Telus executives.
      Actively lobbying for draconian laws written by US content bodies (RIAA, MPAA).

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Bell and Rogers have been controlling the CRTC though Konrad Von Frankenstin(yes I know not his name) for years, those of us involved in fighting for digital rights have seen it time and time again. The whole UBB fiasco was a direct result of his: "and these guys said..." mentality. He was replaced at the end of his term by the conservatives. Simply because he was doing what wasn't in the best interest of Canadians.

      Despite all the whining and crying of people, and how they bitch and moan the the conser

  • How about that for irony. If this succeeds it will be +1 for the internet. I love how people are actually taking a stand; I just hope it's enough for things like ACTA which will or will not be ratified next week..
  • Oh noes! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:26PM (#38810083)

    A hearing!

    Come back to me when there is actually a penalty involved.

  • When Canada signs ACTA shows that don't care at all about net neutrality.
  • by Anrego (830717) *

    The CRTC...

    Our CRTC?

    I know this comment is pointless.. but I just don't know what to say.. I'm kind of scared..

  • Missing Information (Score:5, Informative)

    by magamiako1 (1026318) on Tuesday January 24, 2012 @04:45PM (#38810331)
    A lot of the comments here are missing some information, so let's put it this way:

    The throttling argument started a while ago when gamers detected problems with World of Warcraft on the Rogers network. In fact, Blizzard Entertainment personally spent a ridiculous amount of resources to try contact Rogers but Rogers spent the whole time insisting that their throttling was not affecting WoW, even though gamers and Blizzard had found concrete proof otherwise.

    Interestingly enough, if you switch your connection to a wholesale distributors of Rogers Internet, TekSavvy, in the affected areas, the throttling problem goes away--even though it's going over the same network backbone as if you were provided a Rogers pipe directly.

    Blizzard also attempted to limit the ports used for WoW back to the original game ports (3724), but this was only a temporary solution as they wanted the other connections to help with reliability.

    Long story short, a WoW community member living in Canada kind of spearheaded this and has been a part of this from the absolute very beginning.

    It grew to the point that the CRTC has investigated itself, and this is where we stand now.
  • So, can we expect CRTC to investigate Bell too?

    • by Guspaz (556486)

      RTFA. Bell has made an official filing with the CRTC stating their intention to cease all throttling on March 1st, so any such hearing would be pointless. On top of that, Bell's throttling hardware doesn't work the same way, it uses DPI, which at least tries to identify P2P instead of just throttling anything on P2P ports like Rogers does.

  • Any relation to that jerk in Georgia?

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.

Working...