data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1122a/1122a17e1804ae5aa195bd6352604b408eb76757" alt=""
This all started because an independent end user ISP saw its customers' traffic throttled while watching Bell offer high traffic service to its preferred customers. Details on how to contact the CRTC about this are in this blog post. Here's what I submitted:
"With regard to Network Management Practises, I do not support Bell's (or any other ISP responsible for the backbone of the internet in Canada) position on the necessity to throttle traffic 'in the name of congestion'. Throttling traffic is just the first step by a carrier toward the business model of multi-tiered access. Network neutrality is always the preferred option over favouritism on the internet, because once the carrier has begun discriminating against certain types of traffic, selling priority to those who can afford it is the next step. The internet did not have traffic favouritism in mind when it was designed and such a business model can only stifle innovation, free access and fairness. Imagine if when a highway becomes congested, the responsible party was allowed to deny or limit access to certain sized cars or trucks instead of doing the logical thing - improving the road. If Bell etc. insist that their networks are becoming congested, then it is up to them to remedy the situation with improvements, not limitations. One would also hope that Bell does not expect the public to be blind enough not to see that while one side of the face is saying their network is too congested, the other side is ready to offer new high traffic services direct to their end customers. Back to the highway analogy, it is akin to saying 'no pickup trucks anymore', while giving special lane access to certain vehicles only. In conclusion, please see the big picture and say no to the concept of throttling as an acceptable way to deal with network congestion."
No comments:
Post a Comment