I have fought the Bell war and run all the BS handed out in several languages, changed wires, modems etc. Still speed was the same. I average 2.5 most of the time and it seems to be sensitive to time of day high usage times. Posted by: keith lively | Nov 21, 07 09:11 PM

The world is not fair, no one ever gets the max speed - unless it is from the ISP's home server on off hours. So I suggest you go with who ever you hate less. All service suppliers push the plus, never the minus. Posted by: Ron Campbell | Nov 21, 07 10:14 PM

Blame the Canadian government for all this speed mess. Putting [up to] in the fine print should be illegal. it leads to ISPs not bothering to upgrade their systems to meet demand. please read reviews on satellite systems or some wireless providers and see that if you have dial up and no land based higher speed internet you should not even bother leaving dial up. Posted by: Billy | Nov 22, 07 12:31 AM

I don't consider content-based traffic shaping to be part of the "Net Neutrality" fight. Traffic shaping is used in an attempt to give all customers a consistent internet experience. "Net Neutrality" is to stop ISPs from collecting payments from both ends - charging their customers to connect to the internet while at the same time charging content providers for the full speed use of the ISPs network to access those customers and slowing down any content providers that don't pay up. Posted by: D Stewart | Nov 22, 07 01:37 AM

FYI: For DSL. 5 Mbps does not equal 625KBps. The reason: Almost all DSL providers in Ontario/Quebec use PPPoE. PPPoE adds overhead to the connection .. with the existing TCP overhead, a person with 5M DSL in ON/QC (which is provisioned at 5056Kbps) can expect around 500-520KBps - thats only if their computer and router have been optimized for MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) and TCP Window Receive Size (RSS). Posted by: Steve | Nov 23, 07 08:16 AM

Kudos on the show. ISP are very opposed to regulation and MarketPlace hit on one reason for a need for regulation, false advertising. Imagine an SUV automobile that was allowed to be marketed as having a fuel efficiency of up to 120miles/gallon. Imagine food products with "up to" nutritional values on the labels. We don't tolerate that as consumers but we do if we deal with our ISPs. What was especially pleasant to see the big download file was Ubuntu Linux. Now if you have called Bell/Sympatico/Aliant and you informed them you were downloading Linux and the speed was too slow, they would attempt to dismiss you because you mentioned the word Linux. I've had that experience several times with Aliant in Nova Scotia where when I had called in complaining about unreliable slow speed (less than 10% of advertised speed) they routinely attempted to deny service because I informed them I was downloading Linux. Even when my internet connection is interrupted for hours they attempt to find if I am running Linux in order to dismiss the support request. I run both windows and Linux (preferred) and ISPs should not be allowed to discriminate against non Microsoft users. ISPs lie, discriminate. Regulate them hard. Posted by: Galen Thurber | Nov 24, 07 09:48 PM

Loved you segment on connection speeds. Informative and entertaining. How about some legislation to force IP providers to meet certain minimum speeds closer to promised 'up to' speeds? Posted by: Daniel Lévesque | Nov 25, 07 12:14 PM

Is there a common place where consumers can send their complaints, that will have the most effect on changing the situation? The complaints regarding Bell are all going to Bell. Isn't that a bit like the fox guarding the hen house and selling the eggs? Posted by: kinewah | Nov 25, 07 10:59 PM