A torrent of FUD
Subject: General Tech | June 27, 2008 - 03:50 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
As shocking as it may seem, Bell may not have been completely honest about the effect P2P has had on network congestion. As many were probably already aware, since packets really don't care what route they take, the 2-5% of their network that supposedly suffered from P2P related congestion was simply Bell being too lazy to re-route the traffic. This is good news even if Bell isn't your ISP; you are using their copper and fibre, which your ISP has leased and suffering from the throttling. Get more info, and a link to the inevitable 'data isn't a Chevy' analogy at the Inquirer.
"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
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
Here is some more Tech News from around the web: