Slashdot Mirror

You're lucky. You don't have the Commission for Restrictions and Thought Control insisting that you get channels in a language you don't understand. I wish they would do something useful like bar CNN from regular cable TV and replace it with BBC World so we can all get decent news coverage.

>Apparently, in the aftermath of the WTC terrorism, a majority of Canadians would *not* move to the US when given the chance. Some moron (Sheila Copps, no doubt) was crowing about this, despite the fact that it was the first time such a result had ever been found.

I have a dollar that says this has to do with the fact that Canadians don't get the standard TV placation the US population enjoys, 100% due to these guys.

3 million Canadians can't be wrong!

How do the FCC and CRTC deal with this now in Canada-US border areas?

Here are the requirements for telemarketing in Canada, according to the CRTC. (more info here)

• Callers must identify the person or organization they represent.
• Upon request, callers must provide the telephone number, name and address of a responsible person the called party can write to.
• Callers must display the originating calling number or an alternate number where the caller can be reached (except where the number display is unavailable for technical reasons).
• Names and numbers of called parties must be removed within 30 days of the called party's request.
• DO NOT CALL lists are to be maintained by the calling party and remain active for three years.
• There are no calling hour restrictions on live voice calls. Sequential dialing is not permitted.
• Calls are not permitted to emergency line or healthcare facilities. Random dialing and calls to non-published numbers are allowed.

another site with info on telemarketing laws outside the US.

Not having lived in Canada for the past seven years, I was a little surprised to read that they even considered such a plan (but only a little, since I remember the Federal and Provincial governments just loving to be intrusive into people's personal lives).

I looked up information on this issue, and found "CRTC WONT REGULATE THE INTERNET" at the CRTC website.

Seems someone, somewhere, had a flash of insight about the magnitude of even attemping such regulation (thank goodness).

yeah, i love that fee. a few months ago i read that my local telco was proposing elimination of all rotary phones to the "regulatory body" (aka rubber-stampers). Betcha they wanted to keep charging for the "touch-tone service" line item. Bastards.

Up here in igloo land (Canada), if TNN doesn't have the rights/permission (money/incentive) to broadcast up here...all we get is the local cable/satellite blackout screen.

You guys think you have it bad...look into Canada's CRTC (our local government oppression office :P). I'd be really happy to see that black bar...

alas, here in Canada (at least in this chunk of SW Ontario), we never get to see the superbowl ads in the first place, 'cause they're typically substituted for cheesy local advertising by the Canadian broadcasters showing the event.

here's the CRTC's lousy explanation. (the CRTC is i guess a loathesome canuck version of the FCC, except considerably more pretentious and out of touch with reality.)

apple's big brother? sock puppets? anti-terrorism? nope, more like just another "Leon's No Money Down Miracle Event!". (and no, my building doesn't allow satellite dishes)

The other severely annoying bit that they mess around with is virtual ads. Basically, the broadcaster superimposes logos and other teeny corporate markers over top of crowds, the first down line, and billboard shots. It's usually quite glaring.

i just wish they would broadcast an unadulterated signal!!!

Here in the ungodly foreign parts (Canada...look it up), we already have a company that can give you phone+TV+DSL, but the CRTC (Canada's FCC) won't let 'em charge everything in separate bills, or all in one bill. (sorry, I didn't quite understand it when I signed in, and I'm still not sure.)

Personally, it annoys me. I have to pay my DSL in a lump sum with my phone, and I wish I could have a separate bill for it. That way, I could more easily figure out what I pay for the phone, and what I pay for internet (and dish TV if I had that).
I don't trust 'em ya see...sneaky bastards keep trying to get me on their call waiting scheme...

Go have a look at the CRTC website under "Industry Ownership Profiles". Media Convergence is very real. Witnesseth AOL Time Warner, the conglomeration of conglomerates of conglomerates.

If you're in Canada (like me), the CRTC has some good information on telemarketing regulations here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/INFO_SHT/T22.HTM

If you're in Canada (like me), the CRTC has some good information on telemarketing regulations here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/INFO_SHT/T22.HTM

DirecTV isn't licensed to broadcast in Canada.

what that means is that anyone who receives their signals does so in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular, s. 32(2).

however, DirecTV cannot prosecute under the Broadcasting Act; Canada has to. so in order to get Canadian pirates, they have to persuade the CRTC to go along. so far the CRTC hasn't cared much. this may eventually change, if more Canadians start getting DirecTV and StarChoice or somebody whines enough.

DirecTV isn't licensed to broadcast in Canada.

what that means is that anyone who receives their signals does so in contravention of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular, s. 32(2).

however, DirecTV cannot prosecute under the Broadcasting Act; Canada has to. so in order to get Canadian pirates, they have to persuade the CRTC to go along. so far the CRTC hasn't cared much. this may eventually change, if more Canadians start getting DirecTV and StarChoice or somebody whines enough.

In Canada, telecommunications is a federal responsibility. Because of strong separatist sentiment in Quebec, there is always a suspicion that Quebec judges are biased in favor of Quebec defendants prosecuted under federal regulation.

In this case, the judge's reasoning is consistent with other rulings but it appears to be a loophole at best.

Regardless of Canadian law, the defendants clearly have a civil liability under U.S. laws. The civil judgment arguably is enforceable in Canada.

of a government-controlled film industry obviously is enough to make any right-thinking person want to see all possible copyright protection added to every possible intellectual property treaty.

Faced with this potential evil

Im not sure what you mean but:

I am Canadian. I am happy and proud that Canada's National Film Board and CRTC exist to assist film makers and artists create their works. Art and film is valuable to a healthy culture and should be publicly supported. For profit films are mostly not art - they would be profit vehicles first, creative works second.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), in Canada, "Canadian content" regulations require that radio stations play a minimum amount of Canadian material (approx 35%). Because of that, we get to hear a lot of really cool bands, many of them local, that we'd never otherwise hear. Something like 90% of the music I own, I would never have discovered had it not been for those regulations. I wonder if bands like the Crash Test Dummies, the Barnaked Ladies, the Tragically Hip or Rush would ever have been heard of in the US had Canadian stations been not been forced to pick up enough Canadian music to meet quota.

Wile some argue that the CRTC's (Candian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commision) rules are government interference, there's no doubt that we get a lot more variety than the endless "variety" of top-40 stations that seem to be a-la-mode in the US. That's not to say that there aren't some great US stations... NPR is pretty cool.

Canada isn't unique in regulating cultural content; Australia, New Zealand, France, Korea and other nations all have similar regulations setting cultural content requirements.

Don't forget Microsoft too. That's right, if you want to listen to CRTC hearings over the net, you'll need to have a WiMP supported OS. So much for a commision who's mandate includes evaluating and approving open standards (NTSC, FM, etc) to "ensure that all Canadians have access to a wide variety of high quality Canadian programming."

I guess that doesn't include their programming and the internet (ok, hearings aren't "high quality", but still, there some hypocrisy here, no? ).

Don't forget Microsoft too. That's right, if you want to listen to CRTC hearings over the net, you'll need to have a WiMP supported OS. So much for a commision who's mandate includes evaluating and approving open standards (NTSC, FM, etc) to "ensure that all Canadians have access to a wide variety of high quality Canadian programming."

I guess that doesn't include their programming and the internet (ok, hearings aren't "high quality", but still, there some hypocrisy here, no? ).

The Canadian Rules are quite similar to those posted for the US
(at JunkBusters.com)

The Canadian rules can be found in this article at
the CRTC
I didn't dig too deep, but I expect, given this document, that there may be even tougher laws coming soon!

Check this out.

They show the current rules there and explain how they are trying to get complete coverage of these rules. There's also a link to the document, but this press release sums it up quitenicely.

I found it interesting that they prefer HTML for electronic comments...

Much as dislike the idiots that run Rogers@Home, they do manage to come through on a couple things.

In Ottawa, I pay $80CDN/month (wassat today? ~$60US?) for all the cool channels except for the Movie Network, and cable internet access: DHCP (IP has yet to change after 16 months), no ports blocked, bad-ass looking LanCity modem... decent deal, if you ask me. The internet access itself is $40CDN.

I thought about other things, but @Home is the only real choice for anyone around here that wants a higher upload cap.

As for the CRTC: Personally, I love the CRTC. They do seem to have their shit together, so to speak. They're quite well informed on this "Internet Thing" so far as I can tell.

I have fought more with Videon@Home people then any other tech support service I have ever dealt with. Originaly, they used a local ISP for access, and supplied hardware for a system called "Wave". This was great for me cuz i had shell access on the same ISP i've been using for 7 years. However, when people started to sign up, they realized it'd be cheaper to provide crappier service through @Home, using their standards and tech-support, then do it right. I've been suffering ever since. Connection speeds have dropped an average of 65%, news is now censored, and its down half the time. Oh, and to add to the pain, they forced everyone to change email addresses. It would cost them nothing to maintain the wave email addresses, rather then getting an AOLish @home address (ie, you6948@home.com).

What really hurts is that business customers can maintain the old service, but at double the cost. They want to charge me the business rate just to keep my email address. DSL is around here, but its horribly unreliable. What the broadband industry needs is competition. The CRTC made a ruling saying that even privately-held cable networks can be used by other ISP's, so i'm thinging how hard could it be to piggy-back a legit cable ISP on their network? I don't even have to make money on it, just as long as i get decent bandwidth... here's the link to the ruling - http://www.crtc.gc.ca/a rch ive/Decisions/1999/DT99-11.htm
-MR

A couple years ago, Bell Canada had a service called "name that number." You'd dial 1-areacode-555-1313, and for 75 cents a pop, a machine would spell out who owned the line.

They discontinued it without telling anyone; I only found out when I tried it and it didn't work.

A quick search on google turned up:

• Angus Telecom Update
• Telus' CRTC application
• Bell's withdrawl notice (no details, though)
• etc...

It's interesting how all the telcos introduced and withdrew the service around the same time.

Paul

A couple years ago, Bell Canada had a service called "name that number." You'd dial 1-areacode-555-1313, and for 75 cents a pop, a machine would spell out who owned the line.

They discontinued it without telling anyone; I only found out when I tried it and it didn't work.

A quick search on google turned up:

• Angus Telecom Update
• Telus' CRTC application
• Bell's withdrawl notice (no details, though)
• etc...

It's interesting how all the telcos introduced and withdrew the service around the same time.

Paul

What's wrong with a socialist country?

At least we have *more* than two mainstream federal political parties. Last time I checked, we had five. Sounds like a healthy democracy to me, although the federal NDP's "mainstream" status could be debated.

As for being socialist, that's one thing that I like about this country. We've got a first-class medical system, available to every citizen. In my country, proper health care is a right, not a privelege.

Property of the state? Geez. Maybe you should take a look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As was mentioned in this post, our constitutional rights include:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and
other means of communication.

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Pretty clear if you ask me.

Oh, and let's not forget this decision.

Gee whiz, it sure is too bad that us dumb Canadians are pawns of our evil socialist government. I guess I'll just have to go back to using the Internet without fear of some bigot passing laws limiting what I can say, and if I get sick I'll have to go see a world-class doctor. Damn our socialist values.

And the comedians on the CBC are far better than the dreck on "Whose Line Is It Anyway".

>Only trouble is, a number of Australian porn
>sites have neatly sidestepped the regulations
>by having their sites hosted on U.S. servers.

Interesting point. I don't know if it was mentioned in a /. article before, but Canada has no restrictions regarding content on Internet sites, as stated in this document. Wanna set up a porn server? Try Toronto...

Also Canada doesn't censor their television. Maybe they don't suck so much after all. :)

Actually, Canada does censor it's television. The CRTC (Canada's equiqalent of the FTC) has a long list of DOs and DONTs. The only difference is the tolerance factor.
One example is nudity. We have more nudity than US television, but not to the point of showing genitals, unless in a non-sexual context like a murder scene.

You can find the info here here

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: IANAL, nor a Canadian.

For those who think simple rebroadcasting of content available over the airwaves in Canada is legal for anybody, show me the section of the CRTC's laws that make it so.

I read through the information the CRTC has on its Web site. They explicitly mention that they will not regulate the Internet, even though some content may be considered broadcasting.

If iCraveTV used cable, or a larger antenna, or some other telecommunications device to rebroadcast, I believe that they could do it, but they would need a license from the CRTC first.

Now, this is rebroadcasting, but it's over the Internet. The CRTC does not, and claims it never will, regulate the Internet. So what does that mean? Can companies rebroadcast freely over the Internet without a license, or does that mean that they do not have that right at all seperate from the CRTC granting it?

What if iCrave were to apply for a license to rebroadcast? That would force the CRTC to make a decision one way or the other.

Oh wait, this is being prosecuted in the US, where the matter is more clear-cut! I really don't understand why. This is supposedly a Canadian company, right? Unless...

Interesting... I can't find information on TVRadio Now Corporation, who owns the copyright on the web page. And there's nothing to do there either except click on ad banners.

You can get to the nav bar by going to http://www.icravetv.com/nav.html. Interestingly, there's no physical address located anywhere. Didn't check the feed to see if it was still up -- I don't know any Toronto area codes anyway.

647 is going to be an overlay, not a split. Permissive dialing begins January 8, 2001, with mandatory 10 digit dialing in both 647 and 416 starting March 5, 2001.

You can read more about it here.

obIcraveTV: 250, 604, 867, 403, 780, 306, 204, 807, 519, 905, 416, 705, 613, 514, 450, 819, 418, 506, 902 and 709 are all valid Canadian area codes. :)

-Duketor (tim.meehan@utoronto.ca)

#define IANAL
#define IANAC

Since this is an Internet enterprise, the CRTC is not regulating it. There is an entire news release on the subject, but here is the important bit:

Broadcasting

Regarding whether content on the Internet is broadcasting as defined by the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has made the following points:

1.Everything transmitted over the Internet that is predominantly alphanumeric text is by definition not broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act.
2.Material transmitted over the Internet, which is significantly "customizable" or capable of being uniquely tailored by the individual user, does not involve the transmission of programs for reception by the public and is, therefore, not broadcasting.
3.The remaining material would fall within the definition of broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act, but will be exempt from regulation for the following reasons:

(in part) The new media complement, rather than substitute for traditional broadcasting. Before the new media could substitute for traditional media, key technological and other developments would have to take place.

This case may force the CRTC to reexamine its position, however, since iCrave's business is doing just that!

The bottom line is that standard copyright law should take over, and iCrave should lose IMHO.

In any event, even if the CRTC did have control, iCrave would need to get a license before it could distribute those TV programs.

It would appear they cover both, from the Broadcasting Act:

["broadcasting" "radiodiffusion"]

"broadcasting" means any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place;

Also of note is that when I agreed to the license agreement they made it sound like I was asking them to by my agent. Likely this is largely weasel words for the lawyers.

Just because a Canadian company did something like this doesn't make Canadians bad, does it? Or are you just being bigoted?

At any rate, some Canadian Slashdotters happen to have already stated that they doubt icravetv will win this case.

I don't side with icravetv (as a Canadian) because they are violating Copyright. There are specific laws in Canada (visit the CRTC) protecting broadcasters, etc. This is also fairly well covered by International Copyright Law.

The networks have to get rights to distribute the content. The cable companies often state that you can't resell their content. It would seem to me that presenting content with revenue from the hits would be at least profiting off of the content.

I think that this is a good step ahead for people to be able to acess things like TV for free (witch it should be anyways). My only major worry about this is what limits that the CRTC will eventually put to this. We know how involved governments get into things that they shouldn't be involved in. And what about Telcos getting into the TV battle. Eventually NBTel is getting into the TV way of business by sending TV over the phone line. Chech out ImagicTV for more information on that.

If anybody is interested in reading more about the Canadian Government's decision to force cable companies to "open up", check out the following URLs:

CRTC orders cable firms to give ISPs access to high-speed service.

CRTC and FCC compare notes on Internet

For a more Beaureaucratic look at things, try :

"Competition and Culture on Canada's Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition - 19 May 1995"

Telecom Decision CRTC 98-9

The jist of things is this - The CRTC gave cable carriers 90 days to sell their higher speed Internet services to Internet service providers (ISPs) at a rate 25 per cent lower than their lowest retail prices - forcing competition and across-the-board fair play (hopefully).


.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -

If anybody is interested in reading more about the Canadian Government's decision to force cable companies to "open up", check out the following URLs:

CRTC orders cable firms to give ISPs access to high-speed service.

CRTC and FCC compare notes on Internet

For a more Beaureaucratic look at things, try :

"Competition and Culture on Canada's Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition - 19 May 1995"

Telecom Decision CRTC 98-9

The jist of things is this - The CRTC gave cable carriers 90 days to sell their higher speed Internet services to Internet service providers (ISPs) at a rate 25 per cent lower than their lowest retail prices - forcing competition and across-the-board fair play (hopefully).


.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -

Finally, a topic I know a little about ;)

First, some background info: since the beginning of the year, I've been involved with a consumer's telecommunications organization, the Rogers @Home User's Association. We are a collection of about 500 users of the Rogers@Home internet service, based in both the Ontario and British Columbia provinces in Canada. I serve as their technical director and liaison to management.

What do we do and why do we exist? We formed out of necessity. The entire service had literally collapsed under its own weight, back in December. All of our circuits going to the @Home Network in the US, were completely oversaturated. This had the effect of raising minimum network latency during peak hours, to an excess of 400, 500 and even 600 milliseconds. People were extremely angry, technical support could offer no help, hold times were a minimum of 30 minutes and management would not admit that anything was wrong. Hell, management was thoroughly incommunicado. That entire mess lasted six weeks before it was corrected in the middle of December.

I went to the CRTC, our equivalent of the American FCC, and complained bitterly. They proved to be more technically inept than I had ever dreamed of and didn't want to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. I went to other industry officials, but nothing seemed to help.

Fast forward to February- after many of my comments in the various related newsgroups, a successful petition of angry subscribers, the threat of legal action and the RHUA right there in the thick of things, I received a call from the General Manager of Rogers Cablesystems (parent to Rogers@Home), of the Greater Toronto Area. Seeing as Rogers is the largest cable operator (MSO) in all of Canada, I was a little stunned that I would receive a call from someone so high up in the company. He was interested in setting up a meeting between senior management and I, to discuss the various problems with the service. Over the next few months, two meetings took place, the results of which can both be viewed here.

Now I'm not going to say that the results were very encouraging, but I will say that this whole process has been a step in the right direction. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other consumers groups in the sphere of telecommunications who have direct lines of communication to the senior management of their respective service(s). Due to these open channels of communication between me, our other regional reps and management, some users experiencing serious problems, were able to receive attention a lot sooner than they normally would have. The RHUA is continuing its efforts to hold management accountable for any problems that affect this service and to ensure that the needs of our subscribers are tended to quickly and efficiently.

Now, what the hell does any of this have to do with third party access to the various broadband infrastructures? Well, I've been dealing with the management of my service long enough to know that they, along with every other MSO out there, won't take this newest CRTC ruling lying down and they have the power to see their will through. Open access to the coaxial broadband infrastructure was ordered way back in 1996! Today we're in the same, damned place as we were back then. I don't think this ruling is likely to change anything in the near term. Rogers has revealed a target date of mid-2000 for the provisioning of their service to third party ISP's. Another thing I learned from my management meetings is that MSO's are definitely NOT very good at following target dates. As I have no faith in the CRTC to see their ruling through, God Only Knows (tm) when we'll see any real movement on this issue.

As per my subject of this posts, there are a great deal many details that have yet to be ironed out in order for the CRTC's ruling to be followed. In my opinion, they've barely even started yet. This document contains the recent CRTC decision that has been referenced by our press as of yesterday. Here is another URL that contains basically all the related links to CRTC rulings on broadband internet access. Of particular note is the Canadian Cable Television Association's technical report on providing third party access to the coaxial infrastructure. Be warned that this link is to a dreaded Micros~1 Word 97 Document, but the information contained therein is extremely interesting and critically important, IMHO. The methods for actually provisioning third party access are outlined and briefly discussed.

This aspect is more significant than most people realize. Anyone who is familiar with techologies favouring the PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) encapsulation, will clue in to what I'm talking about here. To make a long story short, PPPoE was developed with third party access to the broadband infrastructures in mind (particularly DSL-related access methods). The scary thing about this technology is that it does not benefit the consumer- not in the slightest. It contains network management features that can only benefit the service providers, themselves. The features are- again, in my opinion- inherently oppressive to all consumers of these broadband services. They are designed to usurp power from users of broadband services, into the hands of their providers. Features include isolating each user's traffic into a "virtual circuit", completely dynamic IP addressing from designated address pools, point and click network monitoring, and a point and click user disconnection option, among many others. I quoted the virtual circuit term above because VC's are traditionally supposed to provide some enhanced reliability, but PPPoE does nothing of the sort.

Basically, if you're worried about CALEA, your online privacy and security, your consumer rights, or anything else that's related to your electronic freedom, be sure to check your concerns at the door in a PPPoE-enabled world. This technology puts way too much power in the hands of individual providers who will be free to do as they choose with it. Snooping on your online communications will be a cinch, as the virtual circuit ID is all that must be isolated for a party to easily see everything you're doing. I don't think I need to explain any further implications of this technology. The sad reality is that I feel that government regulation of broadband services will have to be implemented, in order to curb the abuses of service providers at some point in the future. And as we all know, regulation is definitely not the way to go.

I brought this all up because AOL and GTE specifically used PPPoE hardware, manufactured by Redback Networks, to provision third party access to GTE's coaxial infrastructure. Although I'm betting that PPPoE will not be implemented for open access to the coax infrastructure up here, I AM worried that a different scenario will unfold in the US. I think that every possible step must be taken to prevent PPPoE from being used to provision third party access to any and all broadband infrastructures in the US. This technology has already surreptitiously found its way into several consumer DSL markets out there, both in the US and in Canada, but it must not be permitted to come to cable.

I'm not against Redback Networks, UUNET, AOL, or any other proponents of the very proprietary PPPoE technology; it's just that unless I see any clearcut benefits to consumers out there and my doubts are confirmed by more and more existing and future broadband users, I will personally do all that I can to spread the word about PPP over Ethernet and its implications. One thing I'd really like to see, is someone like Bruce Schneier, and/or an organization like L0pht, go over this technology with a fine tooth comb and tear it to pieces. I have yet to read a critique of its supposed "security features".

On that note, if someone at /. wants me to write up a more detailed analysis of PPPoE for all to see, please give me a shout and I'll be more than happy to oblige.

To finish up here (you're all sighing with relief, I know), I want to say a few last things. First of all, some additional consumer groups must sprout up in the US and Canada, to pay attention to these serious developments and to protect the rights of their constituents. From what I have been able to tell thus far, there just aren't enough people who are willing to stand up and fight for their rights in an organizational manner. I have pushed and pushed for the formation of a Cox @Home user's group, but the main proponent of this idea has told me on numerous occasions that people just aren't angry enough with their service to do anything about it. And this after being well aware that Cox will implement further upstream rate caps of 128 Kbps, with NO proportional reductions in the monthly fees that subscribers pay. This is downright criminal, the way I see it and is something that's totally unjustifiable. Our upstream rates have remained at 400 Kbps because our objections to the cap were voiced very loudly, very early into the process. Purveyors of broadband services will do as they please unless they answer to a consumer authority.

Second, as the CRTC is technically clueless and toothless, with respect to consumer advocacy, our whole situation over here is in limbo, in my own view. I truly hope that American MSO's and, more importantly, American citizens interested in broadband access, observe our progress here and learn what works and what doesn't, from our successes and failures. If all goes well, the RHUA and I might have a hand in seeing how third party access is provisioned to the existing coax infrastructure.

Last but not least, we need to see management become more accountable for the products and services they provide to ordinary consumers. Good customer service is a very difficult thing to find nowadays, with respect to individual consumers. The quality of customer service you receive should not be proportional to the size of your wallet, or the pull of your company. Cable companies providing broadband services, are simply not using the very medium they are selling, to reach their customers. People feel totally left out and unappreciated by the purveyors, and they have every right to feel that way. When someone wants to complain about poor service, or voice their concerns about a related issue, they often must wade through a thick veil of bureacracy to get even the most meager of results. It has been bad- and still is bad- for users of my internet service and as terrible as that may seem, broadband subscribers south of the border have it even worse. This has got to stop now! I've always maintained the highest respect for Slashdot and sites like it (okay, there are no others like it :P), for cutting through all the bullshit and propaganda that's peddled on a daily basis nowadays. The time for action against corporate apathy for individual consumers, has come. Just the very thought that a totally free operating system like Linux, will one day overtake the most widely used product of a corporate behemoth like MS, gives me a truckload of hope for the future. My only hope is that some of the creative power behind the open source effort, spills into the domain of broadband services and the rest of the telecom world.

-Chris Weisdorf

Finally, a topic I know a little about ;)

First, some background info: since the beginning of the year, I've been involved with a consumer's telecommunications organization, the Rogers @Home User's Association. We are a collection of about 500 users of the Rogers@Home internet service, based in both the Ontario and British Columbia provinces in Canada. I serve as their technical director and liaison to management.

What do we do and why do we exist? We formed out of necessity. The entire service had literally collapsed under its own weight, back in December. All of our circuits going to the @Home Network in the US, were completely oversaturated. This had the effect of raising minimum network latency during peak hours, to an excess of 400, 500 and even 600 milliseconds. People were extremely angry, technical support could offer no help, hold times were a minimum of 30 minutes and management would not admit that anything was wrong. Hell, management was thoroughly incommunicado. That entire mess lasted six weeks before it was corrected in the middle of December.

I went to the CRTC, our equivalent of the American FCC, and complained bitterly. They proved to be more technically inept than I had ever dreamed of and didn't want to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. I went to other industry officials, but nothing seemed to help.

Fast forward to February- after many of my comments in the various related newsgroups, a successful petition of angry subscribers, the threat of legal action and the RHUA right there in the thick of things, I received a call from the General Manager of Rogers Cablesystems (parent to Rogers@Home), of the Greater Toronto Area. Seeing as Rogers is the largest cable operator (MSO) in all of Canada, I was a little stunned that I would receive a call from someone so high up in the company. He was interested in setting up a meeting between senior management and I, to discuss the various problems with the service. Over the next few months, two meetings took place, the results of which can both be viewed here.

Now I'm not going to say that the results were very encouraging, but I will say that this whole process has been a step in the right direction. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other consumers groups in the sphere of telecommunications who have direct lines of communication to the senior management of their respective service(s). Due to these open channels of communication between me, our other regional reps and management, some users experiencing serious problems, were able to receive attention a lot sooner than they normally would have. The RHUA is continuing its efforts to hold management accountable for any problems that affect this service and to ensure that the needs of our subscribers are tended to quickly and efficiently.

Now, what the hell does any of this have to do with third party access to the various broadband infrastructures? Well, I've been dealing with the management of my service long enough to know that they, along with every other MSO out there, won't take this newest CRTC ruling lying down and they have the power to see their will through. Open access to the coaxial broadband infrastructure was ordered way back in 1996! Today we're in the same, damned place as we were back then. I don't think this ruling is likely to change anything in the near term. Rogers has revealed a target date of mid-2000 for the provisioning of their service to third party ISP's. Another thing I learned from my management meetings is that MSO's are definitely NOT very good at following target dates. As I have no faith in the CRTC to see their ruling through, God Only Knows (tm) when we'll see any real movement on this issue.

As per my subject of this posts, there are a great deal many details that have yet to be ironed out in order for the CRTC's ruling to be followed. In my opinion, they've barely even started yet. This document contains the recent CRTC decision that has been referenced by our press as of yesterday. Here is another URL that contains basically all the related links to CRTC rulings on broadband internet access. Of particular note is the Canadian Cable Television Association's technical report on providing third party access to the coaxial infrastructure. Be warned that this link is to a dreaded Micros~1 Word 97 Document, but the information contained therein is extremely interesting and critically important, IMHO. The methods for actually provisioning third party access are outlined and briefly discussed.

This aspect is more significant than most people realize. Anyone who is familiar with techologies favouring the PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) encapsulation, will clue in to what I'm talking about here. To make a long story short, PPPoE was developed with third party access to the broadband infrastructures in mind (particularly DSL-related access methods). The scary thing about this technology is that it does not benefit the consumer- not in the slightest. It contains network management features that can only benefit the service providers, themselves. The features are- again, in my opinion- inherently oppressive to all consumers of these broadband services. They are designed to usurp power from users of broadband services, into the hands of their providers. Features include isolating each user's traffic into a "virtual circuit", completely dynamic IP addressing from designated address pools, point and click network monitoring, and a point and click user disconnection option, among many others. I quoted the virtual circuit term above because VC's are traditionally supposed to provide some enhanced reliability, but PPPoE does nothing of the sort.

Basically, if you're worried about CALEA, your online privacy and security, your consumer rights, or anything else that's related to your electronic freedom, be sure to check your concerns at the door in a PPPoE-enabled world. This technology puts way too much power in the hands of individual providers who will be free to do as they choose with it. Snooping on your online communications will be a cinch, as the virtual circuit ID is all that must be isolated for a party to easily see everything you're doing. I don't think I need to explain any further implications of this technology. The sad reality is that I feel that government regulation of broadband services will have to be implemented, in order to curb the abuses of service providers at some point in the future. And as we all know, regulation is definitely not the way to go.

I brought this all up because AOL and GTE specifically used PPPoE hardware, manufactured by Redback Networks, to provision third party access to GTE's coaxial infrastructure. Although I'm betting that PPPoE will not be implemented for open access to the coax infrastructure up here, I AM worried that a different scenario will unfold in the US. I think that every possible step must be taken to prevent PPPoE from being used to provision third party access to any and all broadband infrastructures in the US. This technology has already surreptitiously found its way into several consumer DSL markets out there, both in the US and in Canada, but it must not be permitted to come to cable.

I'm not against Redback Networks, UUNET, AOL, or any other proponents of the very proprietary PPPoE technology; it's just that unless I see any clearcut benefits to consumers out there and my doubts are confirmed by more and more existing and future broadband users, I will personally do all that I can to spread the word about PPP over Ethernet and its implications. One thing I'd really like to see, is someone like Bruce Schneier, and/or an organization like L0pht, go over this technology with a fine tooth comb and tear it to pieces. I have yet to read a critique of its supposed "security features".

On that note, if someone at /. wants me to write up a more detailed analysis of PPPoE for all to see, please give me a shout and I'll be more than happy to oblige.

To finish up here (you're all sighing with relief, I know), I want to say a few last things. First of all, some additional consumer groups must sprout up in the US and Canada, to pay attention to these serious developments and to protect the rights of their constituents. From what I have been able to tell thus far, there just aren't enough people who are willing to stand up and fight for their rights in an organizational manner. I have pushed and pushed for the formation of a Cox @Home user's group, but the main proponent of this idea has told me on numerous occasions that people just aren't angry enough with their service to do anything about it. And this after being well aware that Cox will implement further upstream rate caps of 128 Kbps, with NO proportional reductions in the monthly fees that subscribers pay. This is downright criminal, the way I see it and is something that's totally unjustifiable. Our upstream rates have remained at 400 Kbps because our objections to the cap were voiced very loudly, very early into the process. Purveyors of broadband services will do as they please unless they answer to a consumer authority.

Second, as the CRTC is technically clueless and toothless, with respect to consumer advocacy, our whole situation over here is in limbo, in my own view. I truly hope that American MSO's and, more importantly, American citizens interested in broadband access, observe our progress here and learn what works and what doesn't, from our successes and failures. If all goes well, the RHUA and I might have a hand in seeing how third party access is provisioned to the existing coax infrastructure.

Last but not least, we need to see management become more accountable for the products and services they provide to ordinary consumers. Good customer service is a very difficult thing to find nowadays, with respect to individual consumers. The quality of customer service you receive should not be proportional to the size of your wallet, or the pull of your company. Cable companies providing broadband services, are simply not using the very medium they are selling, to reach their customers. People feel totally left out and unappreciated by the purveyors, and they have every right to feel that way. When someone wants to complain about poor service, or voice their concerns about a related issue, they often must wade through a thick veil of bureacracy to get even the most meager of results. It has been bad- and still is bad- for users of my internet service and as terrible as that may seem, broadband subscribers south of the border have it even worse. This has got to stop now! I've always maintained the highest respect for Slashdot and sites like it (okay, there are no others like it :P), for cutting through all the bullshit and propaganda that's peddled on a daily basis nowadays. The time for action against corporate apathy for individual consumers, has come. Just the very thought that a totally free operating system like Linux, will one day overtake the most widely used product of a corporate behemoth like MS, gives me a truckload of hope for the future. My only hope is that some of the creative power behind the open source effort, spills into the domain of broadband services and the rest of the telecom world.

-Chris Weisdorf

Finally, a topic I know a little about ;)

First, some background info: since the beginning of the year, I've been involved with a consumer's telecommunications organization, the Rogers @Home User's Association. We are a collection of about 500 users of the Rogers@Home internet service, based in both the Ontario and British Columbia provinces in Canada. I serve as their technical director and liaison to management.

What do we do and why do we exist? We formed out of necessity. The entire service had literally collapsed under its own weight, back in December. All of our circuits going to the @Home Network in the US, were completely oversaturated. This had the effect of raising minimum network latency during peak hours, to an excess of 400, 500 and even 600 milliseconds. People were extremely angry, technical support could offer no help, hold times were a minimum of 30 minutes and management would not admit that anything was wrong. Hell, management was thoroughly incommunicado. That entire mess lasted six weeks before it was corrected in the middle of December.

I went to the CRTC, our equivalent of the American FCC, and complained bitterly. They proved to be more technically inept than I had ever dreamed of and didn't want to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. I went to other industry officials, but nothing seemed to help.

Fast forward to February- after many of my comments in the various related newsgroups, a successful petition of angry subscribers, the threat of legal action and the RHUA right there in the thick of things, I received a call from the General Manager of Rogers Cablesystems (parent to Rogers@Home), of the Greater Toronto Area. Seeing as Rogers is the largest cable operator (MSO) in all of Canada, I was a little stunned that I would receive a call from someone so high up in the company. He was interested in setting up a meeting between senior management and I, to discuss the various problems with the service. Over the next few months, two meetings took place, the results of which can both be viewed here.

Now I'm not going to say that the results were very encouraging, but I will say that this whole process has been a step in the right direction. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other consumers groups in the sphere of telecommunications who have direct lines of communication to the senior management of their respective service(s). Due to these open channels of communication between me, our other regional reps and management, some users experiencing serious problems, were able to receive attention a lot sooner than they normally would have. The RHUA is continuing its efforts to hold management accountable for any problems that affect this service and to ensure that the needs of our subscribers are tended to quickly and efficiently.

Now, what the hell does any of this have to do with third party access to the various broadband infrastructures? Well, I've been dealing with the management of my service long enough to know that they, along with every other MSO out there, won't take this newest CRTC ruling lying down and they have the power to see their will through. Open access to the coaxial broadband infrastructure was ordered way back in 1996! Today we're in the same, damned place as we were back then. I don't think this ruling is likely to change anything in the near term. Rogers has revealed a target date of mid-2000 for the provisioning of their service to third party ISP's. Another thing I learned from my management meetings is that MSO's are definitely NOT very good at following target dates. As I have no faith in the CRTC to see their ruling through, God Only Knows (tm) when we'll see any real movement on this issue.

As per my subject of this posts, there are a great deal many details that have yet to be ironed out in order for the CRTC's ruling to be followed. In my opinion, they've barely even started yet. This document contains the recent CRTC decision that has been referenced by our press as of yesterday. Here is another URL that contains basically all the related links to CRTC rulings on broadband internet access. Of particular note is the Canadian Cable Television Association's technical report on providing third party access to the coaxial infrastructure. Be warned that this link is to a dreaded Micros~1 Word 97 Document, but the information contained therein is extremely interesting and critically important, IMHO. The methods for actually provisioning third party access are outlined and briefly discussed.

This aspect is more significant than most people realize. Anyone who is familiar with techologies favouring the PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) encapsulation, will clue in to what I'm talking about here. To make a long story short, PPPoE was developed with third party access to the broadband infrastructures in mind (particularly DSL-related access methods). The scary thing about this technology is that it does not benefit the consumer- not in the slightest. It contains network management features that can only benefit the service providers, themselves. The features are- again, in my opinion- inherently oppressive to all consumers of these broadband services. They are designed to usurp power from users of broadband services, into the hands of their providers. Features include isolating each user's traffic into a "virtual circuit", completely dynamic IP addressing from designated address pools, point and click network monitoring, and a point and click user disconnection option, among many others. I quoted the virtual circuit term above because VC's are traditionally supposed to provide some enhanced reliability, but PPPoE does nothing of the sort.

Basically, if you're worried about CALEA, your online privacy and security, your consumer rights, or anything else that's related to your electronic freedom, be sure to check your concerns at the door in a PPPoE-enabled world. This technology puts way too much power in the hands of individual providers who will be free to do as they choose with it. Snooping on your online communications will be a cinch, as the virtual circuit ID is all that must be isolated for a party to easily see everything you're doing. I don't think I need to explain any further implications of this technology. The sad reality is that I feel that government regulation of broadband services will have to be implemented, in order to curb the abuses of service providers at some point in the future. And as we all know, regulation is definitely not the way to go.

I brought this all up because AOL and GTE specifically used PPPoE hardware, manufactured by Redback Networks, to provision third party access to GTE's coaxial infrastructure. Although I'm betting that PPPoE will not be implemented for open access to the coax infrastructure up here, I AM worried that a different scenario will unfold in the US. I think that every possible step must be taken to prevent PPPoE from being used to provision third party access to any and all broadband infrastructures in the US. This technology has already surreptitiously found its way into several consumer DSL markets out there, both in the US and in Canada, but it must not be permitted to come to cable.

I'm not against Redback Networks, UUNET, AOL, or any other proponents of the very proprietary PPPoE technology; it's just that unless I see any clearcut benefits to consumers out there and my doubts are confirmed by more and more existing and future broadband users, I will personally do all that I can to spread the word about PPP over Ethernet and its implications. One thing I'd really like to see, is someone like Bruce Schneier, and/or an organization like L0pht, go over this technology with a fine tooth comb and tear it to pieces. I have yet to read a critique of its supposed "security features".

On that note, if someone at /. wants me to write up a more detailed analysis of PPPoE for all to see, please give me a shout and I'll be more than happy to oblige.

To finish up here (you're all sighing with relief, I know), I want to say a few last things. First of all, some additional consumer groups must sprout up in the US and Canada, to pay attention to these serious developments and to protect the rights of their constituents. From what I have been able to tell thus far, there just aren't enough people who are willing to stand up and fight for their rights in an organizational manner. I have pushed and pushed for the formation of a Cox @Home user's group, but the main proponent of this idea has told me on numerous occasions that people just aren't angry enough with their service to do anything about it. And this after being well aware that Cox will implement further upstream rate caps of 128 Kbps, with NO proportional reductions in the monthly fees that subscribers pay. This is downright criminal, the way I see it and is something that's totally unjustifiable. Our upstream rates have remained at 400 Kbps because our objections to the cap were voiced very loudly, very early into the process. Purveyors of broadband services will do as they please unless they answer to a consumer authority.

Second, as the CRTC is technically clueless and toothless, with respect to consumer advocacy, our whole situation over here is in limbo, in my own view. I truly hope that American MSO's and, more importantly, American citizens interested in broadband access, observe our progress here and learn what works and what doesn't, from our successes and failures. If all goes well, the RHUA and I might have a hand in seeing how third party access is provisioned to the existing coax infrastructure.

Last but not least, we need to see management become more accountable for the products and services they provide to ordinary consumers. Good customer service is a very difficult thing to find nowadays, with respect to individual consumers. The quality of customer service you receive should not be proportional to the size of your wallet, or the pull of your company. Cable companies providing broadband services, are simply not using the very medium they are selling, to reach their customers. People feel totally left out and unappreciated by the purveyors, and they have every right to feel that way. When someone wants to complain about poor service, or voice their concerns about a related issue, they often must wade through a thick veil of bureacracy to get even the most meager of results. It has been bad- and still is bad- for users of my internet service and as terrible as that may seem, broadband subscribers south of the border have it even worse. This has got to stop now! I've always maintained the highest respect for Slashdot and sites like it (okay, there are no others like it :P), for cutting through all the bullshit and propaganda that's peddled on a daily basis nowadays. The time for action against corporate apathy for individual consumers, has come. Just the very thought that a totally free operating system like Linux, will one day overtake the most widely used product of a corporate behemoth like MS, gives me a truckload of hope for the future. My only hope is that some of the creative power behind the open source effort, spills into the domain of broadband services and the rest of the telecom world.

-Chris Weisdorf

Finally, a topic I know a little about ;)

First, some background info: since the beginning of the year, I've been involved with a consumer's telecommunications organization, the Rogers @Home User's Association. We are a collection of about 500 users of the Rogers@Home internet service, based in both the Ontario and British Columbia provinces in Canada. I serve as their technical director and liaison to management.

What do we do and why do we exist? We formed out of necessity. The entire service had literally collapsed under its own weight, back in December. All of our circuits going to the @Home Network in the US, were completely oversaturated. This had the effect of raising minimum network latency during peak hours, to an excess of 400, 500 and even 600 milliseconds. People were extremely angry, technical support could offer no help, hold times were a minimum of 30 minutes and management would not admit that anything was wrong. Hell, management was thoroughly incommunicado. That entire mess lasted six weeks before it was corrected in the middle of December.

I went to the CRTC, our equivalent of the American FCC, and complained bitterly. They proved to be more technically inept than I had ever dreamed of and didn't want to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. I went to other industry officials, but nothing seemed to help.

Fast forward to February- after many of my comments in the various related newsgroups, a successful petition of angry subscribers, the threat of legal action and the RHUA right there in the thick of things, I received a call from the General Manager of Rogers Cablesystems (parent to Rogers@Home), of the Greater Toronto Area. Seeing as Rogers is the largest cable operator (MSO) in all of Canada, I was a little stunned that I would receive a call from someone so high up in the company. He was interested in setting up a meeting between senior management and I, to discuss the various problems with the service. Over the next few months, two meetings took place, the results of which can both be viewed here.

Now I'm not going to say that the results were very encouraging, but I will say that this whole process has been a step in the right direction. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other consumers groups in the sphere of telecommunications who have direct lines of communication to the senior management of their respective service(s). Due to these open channels of communication between me, our other regional reps and management, some users experiencing serious problems, were able to receive attention a lot sooner than they normally would have. The RHUA is continuing its efforts to hold management accountable for any problems that affect this service and to ensure that the needs of our subscribers are tended to quickly and efficiently.

Now, what the hell does any of this have to do with third party access to the various broadband infrastructures? Well, I've been dealing with the management of my service long enough to know that they, along with every other MSO out there, won't take this newest CRTC ruling lying down and they have the power to see their will through. Open access to the coaxial broadband infrastructure was ordered way back in 1996! Today we're in the same, damned place as we were back then. I don't think this ruling is likely to change anything in the near term. Rogers has revealed a target date of mid-2000 for the provisioning of their service to third party ISP's. Another thing I learned from my management meetings is that MSO's are definitely NOT very good at following target dates. As I have no faith in the CRTC to see their ruling through, God Only Knows (tm) when we'll see any real movement on this issue.

As per my subject of this posts, there are a great deal many details that have yet to be ironed out in order for the CRTC's ruling to be followed. In my opinion, they've barely even started yet. This document contains the recent CRTC decision that has been referenced by our press as of yesterday. Here is another URL that contains basically all the related links to CRTC rulings on broadband internet access. Of particular note is the Canadian Cable Television Association's technical report on providing third party access to the coaxial infrastructure. Be warned that this link is to a dreaded Micros~1 Word 97 Document, but the information contained therein is extremely interesting and critically important, IMHO. The methods for actually provisioning third party access are outlined and briefly discussed.

This aspect is more significant than most people realize. Anyone who is familiar with techologies favouring the PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) encapsulation, will clue in to what I'm talking about here. To make a long story short, PPPoE was developed with third party access to the broadband infrastructures in mind (particularly DSL-related access methods). The scary thing about this technology is that it does not benefit the consumer- not in the slightest. It contains network management features that can only benefit the service providers, themselves. The features are- again, in my opinion- inherently oppressive to all consumers of these broadband services. They are designed to usurp power from users of broadband services, into the hands of their providers. Features include isolating each user's traffic into a "virtual circuit", completely dynamic IP addressing from designated address pools, point and click network monitoring, and a point and click user disconnection option, among many others. I quoted the virtual circuit term above because VC's are traditionally supposed to provide some enhanced reliability, but PPPoE does nothing of the sort.

Basically, if you're worried about CALEA, your online privacy and security, your consumer rights, or anything else that's related to your electronic freedom, be sure to check your concerns at the door in a PPPoE-enabled world. This technology puts way too much power in the hands of individual providers who will be free to do as they choose with it. Snooping on your online communications will be a cinch, as the virtual circuit ID is all that must be isolated for a party to easily see everything you're doing. I don't think I need to explain any further implications of this technology. The sad reality is that I feel that government regulation of broadband services will have to be implemented, in order to curb the abuses of service providers at some point in the future. And as we all know, regulation is definitely not the way to go.

I brought this all up because AOL and GTE specifically used PPPoE hardware, manufactured by Redback Networks, to provision third party access to GTE's coaxial infrastructure. Although I'm betting that PPPoE will not be implemented for open access to the coax infrastructure up here, I AM worried that a different scenario will unfold in the US. I think that every possible step must be taken to prevent PPPoE from being used to provision third party access to any and all broadband infrastructures in the US. This technology has already surreptitiously found its way into several consumer DSL markets out there, both in the US and in Canada, but it must not be permitted to come to cable.

I'm not against Redback Networks, UUNET, AOL, or any other proponents of the very proprietary PPPoE technology; it's just that unless I see any clearcut benefits to consumers out there and my doubts are confirmed by more and more existing and future broadband users, I will personally do all that I can to spread the word about PPP over Ethernet and its implications. One thing I'd really like to see, is someone like Bruce Schneier, and/or an organization like L0pht, go over this technology with a fine tooth comb and tear it to pieces. I have yet to read a critique of its supposed "security features".

On that note, if someone at /. wants me to write up a more detailed analysis of PPPoE for all to see, please give me a shout and I'll be more than happy to oblige.

To finish up here (you're all sighing with relief, I know), I want to say a few last things. First of all, some additional consumer groups must sprout up in the US and Canada, to pay attention to these serious developments and to protect the rights of their constituents. From what I have been able to tell thus far, there just aren't enough people who are willing to stand up and fight for their rights in an organizational manner. I have pushed and pushed for the formation of a Cox @Home user's group, but the main proponent of this idea has told me on numerous occasions that people just aren't angry enough with their service to do anything about it. And this after being well aware that Cox will implement further upstream rate caps of 128 Kbps, with NO proportional reductions in the monthly fees that subscribers pay. This is downright criminal, the way I see it and is something that's totally unjustifiable. Our upstream rates have remained at 400 Kbps because our objections to the cap were voiced very loudly, very early into the process. Purveyors of broadband services will do as they please unless they answer to a consumer authority.

Second, as the CRTC is technically clueless and toothless, with respect to consumer advocacy, our whole situation over here is in limbo, in my own view. I truly hope that American MSO's and, more importantly, American citizens interested in broadband access, observe our progress here and learn what works and what doesn't, from our successes and failures. If all goes well, the RHUA and I might have a hand in seeing how third party access is provisioned to the existing coax infrastructure.

Last but not least, we need to see management become more accountable for the products and services they provide to ordinary consumers. Good customer service is a very difficult thing to find nowadays, with respect to individual consumers. The quality of customer service you receive should not be proportional to the size of your wallet, or the pull of your company. Cable companies providing broadband services, are simply not using the very medium they are selling, to reach their customers. People feel totally left out and unappreciated by the purveyors, and they have every right to feel that way. When someone wants to complain about poor service, or voice their concerns about a related issue, they often must wade through a thick veil of bureacracy to get even the most meager of results. It has been bad- and still is bad- for users of my internet service and as terrible as that may seem, broadband subscribers south of the border have it even worse. This has got to stop now! I've always maintained the highest respect for Slashdot and sites like it (okay, there are no others like it :P), for cutting through all the bullshit and propaganda that's peddled on a daily basis nowadays. The time for action against corporate apathy for individual consumers, has come. Just the very thought that a totally free operating system like Linux, will one day overtake the most widely used product of a corporate behemoth like MS, gives me a truckload of hope for the future. My only hope is that some of the creative power behind the open source effort, spills into the domain of broadband services and the rest of the telecom world.

-Chris Weisdorf

I should point out the fact that its _already_ legal in the US to have a 2640 foot (1/2 mile) radius broadcaster (FM/radio) without any form of lisence. Though I believe you're still subject to FCC fines for swearing on the air (which is kind of frustrating when you want to play bad music on school radio. Good thing I listen to classical :) ). The US should switch more to a CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, part of the Canadian Crown) style control. They work much the same as the FCC except that they operate on complaints instead of running around monitoring frequencies. There's also the Canadian Broadcast Standards Commission (non-government, I only know about it because I went to school with the chairman's son and carpooled with him.:) ) which is run by the broacasters in Canada for the broadcasters in Canada. Both of these organisations will allow small name radio stations quite easily, at lisence (renewal) time. FCC's behind the times, guys. Its still somewhere in the McCarthy era. But anyway...