Rogers Communications violates Canadian net neutrality rules over WoW bandwidth throttling

Rogers is finally going to have to answer for the throttling issues, even after all of the requests and demands to change their packet inspection protocols. The communications company has until Feb. 3 at noon to respond to the complaints about internet throttling or face a hearing with the CRTC board.
Hopefully, the same type of rules can make their way to America, where internet service is abysmally slow and throttled like crazy. Prior to the Cataclysm launch, Blizzard released the new WoW client, which used a peer-to-peer system to upload and download information, patches, data, and all that jazz. This data accidentally triggered internet service providers' bandwidth alerts for torrent traffic and was subsequently throttled to lower speeds. After realizing that many users were experiencing lag issues with the new launcher and their ISPs, Blizzard began its outreach to ISPs in order to work together to fix the problem. A year later, people are still having problems, and Rogers in Canada has admitted to throttling WoW bandwidth.
Filed under: News items






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Eternauta Jan 24th 2012 1:06PM
Why do ISP's slow down peer-to-peer?
What purpose does it serve?
Angus Jan 24th 2012 1:10PM
Their bottom line.
Adam Jan 24th 2012 1:11PM
My guess is it's an effort to dissuade customers from piracy.
Pyromelter Jan 24th 2012 1:16PM
Most ISP's (in the US anyway) are also big media companies. Time Warner and Comcast are 2 examples of this. They hate p2p because they believe it takes away from their sales of movies and tv shows, as well as advertisement on the networks they own through lower ratings. It's likely that other smaller ISP's are in collusion with the big media conglomerates. (I have no idea if Rogers is also a cable/media company like Time Warner and Comcast.)
Supposedly p2p networks also can slow down entire internet speeds, which I guess can be true but I'm not up on the technical aspects of bandwidth so I can't give a more exact explanation of how that works.
Nick Jan 24th 2012 1:25PM
I don't know how internet is served in the states, but here in the UK most ISPs do it because they have to.
Most internet in the UK comes through the telephone line, and whilst we pay for speeds of "up to 20mbps" for example, most customers will only get this outside of peak times. If there is heavy local usage then the speed available to each customer may only be 10mbps as the total bandwidth at the telephone exchange is shared between all customers. Now if customers all decide to cap their speeds downloading the latest glee episodes or twilight movies then the available bandwidth at the exchange is reduced and so others have a poorer service. By capping speeds either at peak times or for certain protocols ISPs are able to provide a service that can be used by all.
Personally I think it sucks, but I understand it has to happen. I'm just willing to pay a little bit more to get the best service in my area. I don't know how my 40mbps connection (with no shaping, throttling or anything else - I always get 37mbps+) compares globally.
Task Jan 24th 2012 1:30PM
@Pyromelter
As i am one of your northen neighbours, I can say yes that Rogers Canada is our equivalent to Comcast, Time/Warner in the US.
Although I don't have their Internet service but am on their smartphone plan, it sucks balls and I hope they fix it.
icepyro Jan 24th 2012 1:58PM
Their argument isn't so much based on piracy (although media can grasp that and it's a popular button) as it is on general bandwidth.
All connections are not equal. Many companies take a 100 mbps uplink and sell 5 mbps connections to 50 people. They get away with that because, in general, nobody uses all 5mbps constantly so they can make the claim if it's the truth for four or five nines of availability.
With the advent of p2p, netflix, etc., it is possible that more than 20 people can actually hit all 5mbps at once. So the ISP solution is QoS. What connections to people NEED to have going full throttle and what can we conveniently claim is normal network lag and still claim the connection is as fast as ever? Well, a netflix stream affects visual quality, a game affects playability, but p2p just kinda goes until its done, so it's the one to get shafted.
Now it's also mighty convenient, and most likely is certainly one of the considerations, that the media has spun p2p as being nothing but piracy, so a complaint of p2p speeds might as well be an admission of guilt to most. Still there are reasons of logistics and not just legality.
S Jan 24th 2012 3:04PM
I know of at least 2 reasons they don't like p2p stuff.
1) It costs them money for every byte going to other ISPs/networks. There are interconnect fees between these networks they negotiate, so it costs a couple pennies to transfer data.
2) (more likely) The ISPs lie to you when they sell you X mbps Internet. They run a high bandwidth hub to an area, and people share this hubs bandwidth knowing that not everyone accesses the Internet at the same time. That way they can sell like 250mbps+ on a 100mbps connection hub. If multiple people start downloading and hogging this pipe, your neighbors don't get as much of that window and they complain. Then it costs them more to put a bigger pipe to you.
moridar Jan 24th 2012 3:34PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Wireless
john Jan 24th 2012 1:08PM
Thats awesome, now if only something could be done about ATT's random traffic throttling to Eastlink customers.
Pyromelter Jan 24th 2012 1:17PM
Simple solution, avoid AT&T at all costs. Has worked well for me in the mobile device area.
wow Jan 24th 2012 2:13PM
I've never had real big issues with ATT. I've been using their service now since the 1990s for Cell/Landline/Internet. Up until Uverse had always used Satellite for TV. I'm only using a 6mbps plan and I am routinely (on random testing) stay at 5.7-5.85 speeds. :)
Shinanji
Ophelos Jan 24th 2012 10:32PM
I'm on eastlink 20, an i don't got any throttling problems at all.
sead Jan 24th 2012 1:16PM
Yet another reason I'm leaving Rogers in a few months!
Cadychan Jan 24th 2012 1:19PM
Booooo!
I'm with Shaw, but it's probably no different. >:(
Corath Jan 24th 2012 1:31PM
I'm with Shaw, and I have had no problems. I was downloading the Reckoning demo last night while playing WoW and had no slowdowns whatsoever.
Task Jan 24th 2012 1:33PM
@Cadychan
I am on Shaw as well and yes it's just as bad but more tolerable.
On a separate note, hi Cadistra!!!! :)
Task from Winnipeg
Cadychan Jan 24th 2012 1:39PM
Hi Task! :3
Langis Langley Jan 24th 2012 1:41PM
I'm also with Shaw. I don't *think* they throttle WoW, but if they do, there's now strong precedent not to, thanks to the CRTC's ruling.
Kirkules Jan 24th 2012 1:54PM
I'm with Aliant in Newfoundland and have had no problems with throttling. I avoid Rogers like the plague.