Canada to Rogers: Come up With Plan to Stop Throttling game Traffic

September 19, 2011 -

The Canadian government’s telecommunications regulator has had enough of Internet service provider Rogers Communications throttling online game connections. The ISP tried to provide a reason but the government seems unsatisfied with the answer. The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission has given the company until September 27 to put together a plan to deal with the problem of game throttling.

"Commission staff also requests that Rogers provide a detailed report to the Commission once the problem is resolved, demonstrating that the problem has been fixed," read a portion of the letter sent to the ISP by the commission. "The requested document should include an overview of the solution, how it deals with the "underlying" dilemma, and "a description of the changes made to Rogers' ITMP [Internet Traffic Management Practices] disclosures in order to accurately reflect resolution of this problem."

The CRTC also plans on creating new guidelines "for responding to complaints and enforcing framework compliance by Internet service providers" sometime this week. Critics of this particular ISP think that these new guidelines will make it easier to resolve ISP and game related disputes.

The ball was put in the CRTC's court last year when Canadian World of Warcraft players began complaining of traffic interference during peak traffic periods. A December 2010 letter to the Commission revealed that content-to-client traffic was being mistaken for P2P traffic, and therefore being throttled by Rogers.

Ars Technica has more background information on this story here -- including a response from Teresa Murphy, who is a co-complainant alongside Jason Koblovsky. You may know Jason from his regular blog posts and his occasional contributions at GP.

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: Canada to Rogers: Come up With Plan to Stop Throttling ...

Rogers (and Bell) are going to soon have to face up to the future of the internet service. They're too invested in selling other services (such as Phone and Television) that conflict with web-services for them to actually make a stand as a good and reliable ISP. With the increasing availability of web-video and services like Google Voice, it's getting less and less appealing to pay for the obscenely overrated sevices Rogers provides.

Case in point, I recently moved, and dropped Rogers as a provider; they were charging $65 a month for the high speed service I was using, and a $1.50 for every gig over the first hundred of use -- as my fiance and I do everything on the web, we were regularly getting an extra $10-20 on our bill every month, no problem.

Our new provider is charging $10 less a month for a higher speed connection, no caps, and a few other perks. We're now saving about $25 a month; our bill is never a surprise. The connection is just as stable, and it makes services like Netflix functionally free. And we don't have to deal with other anti-consumer policies like this one.

The only reason Rogers and Bell retain their customer base is because they are the biggest companies with the best recognition and largest marketing efforts. And if they don't shape up, more of the little guys are going to tear customers away from them bit by bit until nothing is left.

Re: Canada to Rogers: Come up With Plan to Stop Throttling ...

What ISP are you using?

Living in Canada is awesome. We enjoy the universal healthcare and gun-free environment of a European country while getting all of our games released at the same time as the US.

Re: Canada to Rogers: Come up With Plan to Stop Throttling ...

Distributel; I have nothing but praise for them so far, though the service is still fresh.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
MattsworknameDitto kotaku, Gawker, VOX, Polygon, ETC07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MechaTama31So, between pulling a game from one chain of stores, and forcing editorial changes to a media source, only one of them strikes you as being on the edge of censorship, and it's the game one?07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
Andrew EisenHave gamers ever tried to ban a product? Can you be more specific? I'm not clear what you're getting at.07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
Mattsworknamethey should have expected some kind of blow back. But I didn't participate in that specific action07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MattsworknameAndrew Youd have to ask others about that, I actualyl didn't have much beef with them till last year, so I can't speak to there history. I simply feel that gamesutra chose politics over gaming and chose to make enimies of it's prime audiance. For that,07/28/2015 - 8:40pm
Andrew EisenI'm still not clear on how Gamasutra was lacking in accountability or what it was lacking in accountability for.07/28/2015 - 8:38pm
MattsworknameAndrew: You and I agree on most of that. I don't diagree that there should ahve been other actions taken. Now, I do want to point something out, casue Im not sure if it's happened. Have gamers ever tried to have a product banned?07/28/2015 - 8:37pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician