<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Net neutrality issue hits close to home</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/uncategorized/net-neutrality-issue-hits-close-to-home/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/uncategorized/net-neutrality-issue-hits-close-to-home</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 03:22:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/uncategorized/net-neutrality-issue-hits-close-to-home/comment-page-1#comment-6156</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/uncategorized/net-neutrality-issue-hits-close-to-home/#comment-6156</guid>
		<description>Over at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2782/125&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Geist&#039;s blog&lt;/a&gt; I found this informative posting that explains why Bell might find it necessary to throttle the bandwidth of independent ISPs:

&lt;blockquote&gt;
Written by Michael Richardson on 2008-03-26 08:58:57

Bell has built the dumbest network ever. 
They backhaul EVERYTHING to Toronto. All the DSL from Ottawa, Kitchener, North Bay, etc. is all backhauled to Toronto for PPPoE termination. (And they don&#039;t even peer with anyone in Canada it seems) 

That means that when you communicate with your *neighbour* you use those links twice: once to Toronto, and once back. Of course P2P hurts Bell, because they primary purpose is to sell you to US-based suppliers. 

If Bell had a clue, they would terminate the PPPoE *locally*, and that means that bandwidth to your neighbour would cost them much less. 

Not only would that solve their lack-of-clue-when-it-comes-to-infrastructure, but that would also make their network much more reliable in the face of back-hoe events, power blackouts, and prepare them to offer digital voice and video. 
 
This is a hole of their own digging. 

&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Over at <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2782/125">Michael Geist&#8217;s blog</a> I found this informative posting that explains why Bell might find it necessary to throttle the bandwidth of independent ISPs:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Written by Michael Richardson on 2008-03-26 08:58:57</p>
<p>Bell has built the dumbest network ever.<br />
They backhaul EVERYTHING to Toronto. All the DSL from Ottawa, Kitchener, North Bay, etc. is all backhauled to Toronto for PPPoE termination. (And they don&#8217;t even peer with anyone in Canada it seems) </p>
<p>That means that when you communicate with your *neighbour* you use those links twice: once to Toronto, and once back. Of course P2P hurts Bell, because they primary purpose is to sell you to US-based suppliers. </p>
<p>If Bell had a clue, they would terminate the PPPoE *locally*, and that means that bandwidth to your neighbour would cost them much less. </p>
<p>Not only would that solve their lack-of-clue-when-it-comes-to-infrastructure, but that would also make their network much more reliable in the face of back-hoe events, power blackouts, and prepare them to offer digital voice and video. </p>
<p>This is a hole of their own digging. </p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
