In 2005, it was revealed that Rogers engages in packet shaping. Now, I am well aware that some applications, if not configured properly, can cause significant issues on a network, and so they must be controlled. I'm mostly thinking of peer-to-peer applications used by folks who do not understand the way to properly configure their programs. I run a little network, and myself and all of my users are painfully conscious of the results of the poor-configured peer-to-peer program on the network. I am OK with a small number of control over peer-to-peer traffic for this reason. Rogers, however, has gone more than a few steps beyond what is justifiable for network performance. Of course, I'm assuming here that Rogers really has the ability to provide every client with just what their advertised rates are. Nevertheless, it appears not even their technical support staff are aware of the bandwidth throttling in effect, or they are lying to customers. I called in multiple times about this, and one person denied that Rogers uses packet formation and further said they never would. Two others say that Rogers does indeed use packet shaping. One individual described the effects as "hardly noticeable" except for "illegal traffic", while the other said the effects were "up to a 40% reduction" for all encrypted or highport traffic. I am sorry, last time I checked, I was paying for Internet access
at "up to" the advertised rates, not pointlessly and arbitrarily degraded Internet access. What is worse, they are not just degrading traffic that's actually causing network performance issues - they're simply degrading anything inbound on high ports and any encrypted traffic! This is comparable to when two guys were removed from a flight for possibly speaking Arabic. Extreme example? Perhaps, but the similarities are there. If that's the case, passengers were removed because they may have been speaking a language that is the first language of a terrorist. In this situation, users are having traffic degraded since they may be using protocols used by a software pirate. Now, what I do not quite get is how they cannot distinguish between normal off-port SSH traffic and other encrypted traffic. SSH packets contain, among other things, the string "SSH". It isn't difficult to find, it's right at the beginning of the payload, and it is used to extend a fingerprint for SSH traffic. All traffic shaping devices and commercial-grade firewalls I am aware of are effective at detecting SSH traffic and selectively applying or not applying shaping rules based on this recognition.
Based on e-mails and telephone conversations with Rogers technical support, it truly is not only their software but also their technicians who do not understand the difference between peer-to-peer traffic and other traffic. The first e-mail I sent to them was asking about encrypted remote login protocols, and the response I received was talking about peer-to-peer downloads. In addition they don't understand the distinction between the BitTorrent protocol as well as a BitTorrent client application, since they speak about "the application BitTorrent". Essentially, they made no attempt to deal with the concerns I really had, and when I called them on it and pointed out the many problems presented by their own technical support answers over email and telephone, the following e-mail I got merely pointed me toward the Rogers End User Agreement and the Rogers Acceptable Use Policy (PDF). Neither of these say anything about traffic shaping in almost any manner (at least they did not when I downloaded them) although the Appropriate Use Policy does say that no hosts are enabled.
That would disallow any peer-to-peer client, together with the SSH server I was running that started this whole thing. Interestingly enough, using the Video Conference or Webcam features of the MSN client also violates this policy, since they start servers for direct connections where possible, with alternative procedures if a direct server connection fails. I believe they do exactly the same thing for users with the "direct dialogue" power, but I am not certain about that. Other IM services could also break the AUP in the same or similar ways. And of course, they proposed filling out their customer support form if I had additional questions or concerns, and that I should write to the Office of the President if I was dissatisfied with their service. "Dissatisfied" would be one way to put it. "Dissatisfied and pissed at the incompetence of Rogers technical support and technical support managers" would be a little more accurate.
Not only should this concern individuals who care about being able to utilize their Internet connection properly (and within the laws that apply to them), this should also be of great concern to advocates of network neutrality. Rogers complaints can already determine what traffic is internal to their own network, and they have already got aggressive traffic shaping in effect. All that is left will be to apply a rule that says "any traffic with an outside source/destination has a maximum rate of X". At least the University of Ottawa has been having complaints from consumers that are not able to properly use their e-mail applications from home. Interestingly enough, only rogers complaints users have complaints. It will not stop there, nevertheless. With all encrypted traffic being degraded, any businesses that depend on VPN technologies for distant users will find themselves with employees unable to connect (or unwilling to cope together with the subdial-up speeds) if those users (or the business itself) uses rogers complaints.
Michael Geist points out the lack of transparency and also the risk to communications, but he also points out something even more disturbing. As of April 17, 2007, no governmental authorities, including Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, Competition Commissioner Sheridan Scott, and Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Chair Konrad von Finckenstein, have made any attempts to discontinue this. Bernier has truly acted to bring about something entirely the opposite - regardless of the objection of a parliamentary committee studying telecommunications deregulation, he pushed forward with a plan to do that early in April Website.
Copyright © by the contributing authors, 2007-2025.