Rogers explains ‘shaping' policy

[CLIFFORD ILKAY]

You sound like a Roger PR guy.

Stephen wrote:
> D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>> The question is how they should divy up the bandwidth.
>>   
> I thought that this was addressed well.
> 
> They divvy up the bandwidth by partitioning the residential bandwidth so 
> most is for downloading,
> and little is for uploading.

What is so special about uploaded vs. downloaded packets? Are uploaded 
packets "heavier"? Bandwidth is bandwidth. I should be able to specify 
the QoS so that I can dynamically allocate the proportion of up/down 
rates as my needs change. All Rogers has to tell me is that I can burst 
up to some transfer rate. I'll take care of the rest.

> Most domestic uploading (measured by volume) is file sharing of 
> copyrighted  videos.

Proof? What if I want to back up my computers, and I do, to Amazon's S3 
service? What if I want to upload photos and videos that I have taken to 
share with my family? What if I want to share content that the copyright 
holder actively encourages people to share via BitTorrent, such as some 
documentaries created by the CBC and BBC? ISPs like Rogers and Bell wrap 
themselves in the flag of copyright protection. It is not their job to 
protect anyone's copyright but their own. By taking these measures, 
supposedly in the name of protecting copyright holders, they lose their 
status as common carriers and now become censors and gatekeepers. I hope 
Rogers and Bell get sued out of existence when some sharp lawyer mounts 
a successful attack on behalf of copyright holders whose "content" 
managed to slip through the Rogers/Bell copyright enforcement dragnet.

> By limiting uploads, they are limiting the amount of this data that can 
> enter the Internet "cloud"
> 
> This has the consequence of limiting downloads of this data.

It has no such consequence. There is zero cost to duplicating digital 
data and all attempts by ISPs to enforce copyright law are bound to be 
futile. All this blather about copyright protection is nothing more than 
a smokescreen to hide their real agenda, which is to use their monopoly 
position to kill potential rivals for the media side of their 
businesses. If enough broadcasters started making shows available via 
BitTorrent, why would anyone pay a monthly fee to Bell ExpressVu or 
Rogers Cable to deliver the same shows? The real problem here is that 
Rogers and Bell have a conflict-of-interest. They are engaging in these 
anti-competitive practices to protect their own business interests. This 
is a sufficiently complex issue that it's easy for Rogers and Bell to 
bamboozle and lobby legislators, regulators, and the general public.

> Legitimate servers that do not have small upload pipes can feed the 
> cloud at much higher transfer
> rates.

Pray tell, how does one get data to these "legitimate servers" then? And 
what constitutes a "legitimate server"? It seems to me there are plenty 
of rogue servers all over the world, the sole purpose of which is to 
send spam or spread malware.
-- 
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis Corporation
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Toronto, ON
Canada  M4N 3P6

<http://dinamis.com>
+1 416-410-3326
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists