Rogers explains ???shaping' policy

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:38:13PM -0400, CLIFFORD ILKAY wrote:
> 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.

Actually DOCSIS was just misdesigned.  The amount of bandwidth allocated
for uploads from customers is much much lower than the bandwidth
allocated for downloads.  It is I believe much more asymetric than ADSL.

> 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.

Besides if you transfer a copyrighted video, how do they know what you
have permission to do?  Perhaps you are the copyright owner who is
transfering your copyrighted video to a distributer.

> 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.

Many smaller ISPs tend to be charged for peering with large providers
and have to pay for the uploads to be carried, but may not be charged
for the downloads, so they are often interested in not being the source
of much traffic, only the destination.  At least I think it used to be
that way.  Large ISps would peer with each other with no charge to each
other as long as the bandwidth use each way was fairly similar.

> 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.

Sneaker net of course. :)

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
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