P2P does not harm networks
TELCO BELL'S OWN DATA contradicts its belief that P2P traffic is congesting its networks.
Bell was ordered to release some details about how important it was to throttle P2P traffic and how file sharing was hurting the company.
It did this and has been clearly trying to spin the information to cover the fact its evidence is starting to look a bit weak.
The most damaging evidence is a claim that over two months two to five per cent of their network suffered some sort of congestion. It did not say if the problem was sustained or brief bursts of congestion.
Bell admits that "while these numbers may seem low to the average lay person, they are significant to network traffic engineers such that it is important to consider the number of congested links in the proper context."
If only a single link in the network is congested, end users may still experience slowdowns or dropped connections, it said.
However engineers reading the document here said that the whole idea is bogus as blockages in one area can be easily re-routed. The congestion Bell claims to be suffering from is nothing and its figures completely dispel the myth that P2P is crushing the internet. ยต
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
What IS stifling the Internet is not P2P, but greedy telco pseudo-managers who still haven't adjusted to reality outside a protected monopoly and whine to the government every time they don't think their bonuses are large enough, which is always.

Stop being such a bunch of pointy-haired bosses (ref: Dilbert) and get with the program!
This is about Bell Canada, not Bell. Bell Canada, despite the name, only serves Ontario and Quebec.

I use the term "serve" loosely. They represent the most incompetent collection of boobs in the telecoms industry. Every time I have the unfortunate experience of dealing with them, they screw up.

I keep hoping their collective incompetence will result in them going bankrupt and new players coming in to provide real, quality services. Unfortunately, there are so many people who buy their services because they are the oldest company in the business that this will not likely ever happen.
Bell didn't throttle back their competition's connections due to 'congestion'. They did it because their competition was kicking their ass! The competition offers faster Internet speeds and better service for the same of less then Bell does. Bell was feeling it tn their pocketbook, so they 'stacked the deck' against the competition by slowing down THEIR connections to match Bell's crappy speeds-using the excuse of 'protecting' their network.

Well, now there's proof to back uo what we all knew was happening all along. 

I hope that Bell gets fined BIG BUCKS for this-and it (once again) shows the need for competition in the marketplace.
What is stifling the internet is not so much P2P anymore. (It may have been true in 2002 through 2005, but switching technology has now caught up in most areas). No, the stifling comes from SPAM and SPAM Bots and then those godawful "targeted smart streaming advertisements". Gof how I hate to see Amazon making recommendations to me while I'm trying to read Glen Greenwald. I absolutely abhor the data collection crap....
Have any studies compared the relative wasteage cause by spam versus P2P traffic?

Spam is a widely distributed load.

I think the Telcos block P2P as a prelude to saying we will unblock it for a fee...$$$
But if you block the traffic, then you dont have to upgrade the links. Thus you save money and effectively only harm people that you dont want as customers.
It's a business win-win.
Maybe if the telco's didnt over sell their network they wouldnt have any problems.



I know what's throttling speed, the ISP's are throttling speed. 

If we pulled the speed limit off all connections then transfers would happen faster and there would be less traffic at any one time. 

When there are high traffic periods, we suffer the lack of bandwidth, so why when the traffic is low can't we have all share the surplus? Make hay while the sun shines. 

The faster the traffic can move at any given time means less opportunity for traffic jams to occur. Why let excess network capacity just sit there? I think the small minded folks in the industry see throttling as a positive. Make the consumer pissed off and leverage that to get what you want which would be to frustrate the consumer even more.

What happens when men start drinking alcohol? If you can't beat em', join em'; you get something that isn't a man or women but the thinking and behavior is very much cohesive-how can we force people to do what we want, and the term bitch finds a perfect home, back with those who coined it. 

Live responsibly and please don't drink and breathe.
Despite the fact that there is a HUGE quantity of spam on the internet, from my own filtering service figures over 90% of the 3million or so emails per month I process is spam, the actual data volume is very small. Spam messages are light weight small and targeted as they have to be to allow the senders to bang out millions of them in short space of time before they get shutdown.

Spam traffic constitutes only a very tiny fraction of the internet bandwidth usage and thats a fact.

Torrent traffic does use loads, but if that can congest a network like Bell Canadas then their network is badly designed. Furthermore to suggest that congestion at one point can slow down the whole network indicates a single point of failure and a piss poor network design.

So their statement should read "because our network was designed by 5 year old on the back of a fag packet, even the slightest problem can bring it to its knees".
That referenced article is really top notch. Almost beats the inqz quality itself. Hardly does one see such a skillful composition of unshakeable facts and well rounded analogies.

On a serious note - such whiny pamphlets can only do the cause harm by damaging credibility.