Comments on: Why is Canadian ISP “Shaw” blocking iTunes store / podcasts? http://www.hypocrisy.nu/2006/01/14/why-are-canadian-isp-shaw-blocking-itunes-store-podcasts/ A blog about modern media, PR, society, technology and how they all bind together. Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:57:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Henrik http://www.hypocrisy.nu/2006/01/14/why-are-canadian-isp-shaw-blocking-itunes-store-podcasts/comment-page-1/#comment-164 Henrik Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:46:04 +0000 http://www.hypocrisy.nu/2006/01/14/why-are-canadian-isp-shaw-blocking-itunes-store-podcasts/#comment-164 That's awful.. Sounds like situation in Sweden with TeliaSonera having monopoly over more "rural" areas. Thank you for your insight however, Stu!!! :) That’s awful.. Sounds like situation in Sweden with TeliaSonera having monopoly over more “rural” areas.

Thank you for your insight however, Stu!!! :)

]]> By: Stu Charlton http://www.hypocrisy.nu/2006/01/14/why-are-canadian-isp-shaw-blocking-itunes-store-podcasts/comment-page-1/#comment-161 Stu Charlton Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:00:59 +0000 http://www.hypocrisy.nu/2006/01/14/why-are-canadian-isp-shaw-blocking-itunes-store-podcasts/#comment-161 This isn't so easy: one can't exactly vote with their wallet here. Many people don't have a choice in high-speed providers, as they can't get DSL in their area. 3rd party high-speed providers still must use the Shaw or Rogers network and thus also must deal with the traffic shaping that's going on. Basically they cap anyone that connects simultaneously to 2 or more servers with a high speed download. What's awful here is that this has apparently always been in Rogers' contractual agreement -- they're allowed to shape their traffic however they see fit. And it's arguably only a matter of time before the DSL providers such as Bell Sympatico follow suit. The most obvious way this kind of behaviour will stop is if Internet access becomes regulated by the CRTC (Canadian FCC) as an essential service and imposes standards on how traffic shaping occurs. Of course, increasing regulation like this is a dangerous move on many levels, so one would hope a market solution will emerge -- enough complaints to Rogers, Shaw, and/or their co-branding partners like Yahoo! might be able to introduce a new pricing structure to reflect bandwidth usage without these shaping restrictions. Perhaps something in between "business" pricing and consumer pricing. This isn’t so easy: one can’t exactly vote with their wallet here. Many people don’t have a choice in high-speed providers, as they can’t get DSL in their area. 3rd party high-speed providers still must use the Shaw or Rogers network and thus also must deal with the traffic shaping that’s going on. Basically they cap anyone that connects simultaneously to 2 or more servers with a high speed download.

What’s awful here is that this has apparently always been in Rogers’ contractual agreement — they’re allowed to shape their traffic however they see fit. And it’s arguably only a matter of time before the DSL providers such as Bell Sympatico follow suit.

The most obvious way this kind of behaviour will stop is if Internet access becomes regulated by the CRTC (Canadian FCC) as an essential service and imposes standards on how traffic shaping occurs. Of course, increasing regulation like this is a dangerous move on many levels, so one would hope a market solution will emerge — enough complaints to Rogers, Shaw, and/or their co-branding partners like Yahoo! might be able to introduce a new pricing structure to reflect bandwidth usage without these shaping restrictions. Perhaps something in between “business” pricing and consumer pricing.

]]>