Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Government Rejects Net Neutrality Rules
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian Press reports that the Canadian government appears ready to reject net neutrality legislation, instead heeding the arguments of large telecommunications companies . Michael Geist has posted transcripts of the documents which can be summarized as the government thinks that blocking or prioritizing content is acceptable, it knows that this runs counter to recommended policy, and it doesn't care because it plans to the leave the issue to the dominant telecommunications providers."
Canada is unfortunetly under the minority rule of a conservative government that doesn't want to intervene too much in the economy etc. so it's normal that they reject net neutrality rules since they love big telco lobbying as well. This won't last too long. It's been a year since they've been in power and already the canadian population has become sick of this goverment. I predict elections this spring and with the result of a minority liberal government that will pay more attention to these netneutrality rules when time will come.
Adi
It's a series of tubes, ya hoser.
are we fucked? I actually had hopes in the Canadian government but it seems all they are capable of is causing shit. And what kind of a government would leave a thing such as THE WORLD WIDE WEB in the hands of business'?
Q: Know why Canadians do it doggie style? A: So they can watch the hockey game.
Just like when they recently voted on whether they should all get a 30% salary raise. We didn't get to vote, oh no, that wouldn't be fair.
I wish I was allowed to vote for my own raises. All in favor of a 5000% raise? ME! Well that's settled.
Blerg.
Wasn't that the ontario provincial parliament? or did i miss the feds doing it too?
I haven't thought much about Net Neutrality until Comcast disconnected my HSI service and terminated the account because I used the internet too much. Now I'm finding people all over the country who have had similar problems including a journalist for the Deseret Spectacle.
I've found other people throughout Utah who are dealing with this problem. My search has lead me to other states with people asking the same questions I have been asking .
This is just a couple of instances where Comcast has demonstrated unfair business practices. I'm wondering if Net Neutrality would curb this sort of abuse from companies. I'm ok with following the rules (don't get me wrong). But to be expected to minimize Internet usage without knowing what the rules are is pure B.S.
Heck, I've had people on my blog accuse me of all sorts of stuff. Unfortunately, it's not even close to the truth.
If I'm misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is please enlighten me.
BTW, if you are from Utah and have been disconnected by Comcast please contact me by posting on the blog. I receive all messages. I'm compiling a list and plan on passing it along to Bill Gephart. We've been working for the last few weeks to resolve this. He's already begun interviewing people I've found. Thanks!
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Let companies prioritize their delivery, but when they advertise performance, they're only allowed to use the lowest common denominator. Time Warner can then stream HD stuff just for their customers, but when they advertise 4 megabits down, they aren't allowed to throttle anyone below it.
This was the Liberal party of the Ontario Provincial Parliament. They also did it just before the Christmas break, to minimise debate on the subject when people were preoccupied with the holidays.
I am a bit disappointed in the federal government now though...the Conservatives aren't changing the policies of the previous Liberals in terms of media consolidation and copyright law. The more things change, the more they stay the same. We have more 3rd parties in Canadian politics than the US, but they serve more to offset the balance of power and have no real chance at governing (NDP, Greens, Bloc Quebecois).
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Don't blame Canada. Blame The Tory Government, of Canada.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Government regulation is not incompatible with a free market. In a free-market society, government exists to enforce agreements between people. It is itself an agreement between the people to create a set of rules by which other disagreements can be resolved.
For example, if the people say, "Dumping pollution into the rivers is bad", in a free market they get together to define "pollution" and enforce the rule. Government is only the mechanism by which that happens. The market is still entirely free.
Of course, actual governments are composed of people who can be persuaded not to do their jobs properly. And the final results are always far more complicated than "don't pollute". That's why conservatives (confusingly also called "classic liberals" by economists) tend to prefer less government rather than more: the less there is the easier it is to see where it's going wrong. Just like in code.
So I'm reluctant to let the government enshrine net neutrality rules before we see what the big companies actually do. It restricts the ability to innovate, not just by big companies but also by small ones. Once the big companies actually start engaging in nightmare scenarios (e.g. forcing you to use their own download services rather than a competitor's), then regulation will be in order.
Agreed. Anyone, telcos included, who thinks they've accomplished something by getting this government to agree is just blowing smoke. The Conservatives aren't going to last more than a few more months, and the polls indicate that their chances of returning are pretty low.
Of course, the odds are that whoever wins, it will be a minority government, and the Liberals are every bit as much the ass-whores of big business as the Conservatives.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Since the government controls and often forbids people laying fiber or cable across public land they have a responsibility to make sure the companies they granted rights to are controlled to meet the needs of the people or they should authorize everyone and we can have a rat's nest of fiber all over. I like the rat's nest idea, because it's better than being a slave to Telus.
ISPs are not the ones "providing" any content in the first place. What they provide is a means by which to reach content provided by other sources, regardless of ISP. So by going against net neutrality in any small way, ISPs are simply restricting content, not providing it.
Put another way, companies that can afford to pay the extra fees will be high-speed, while companies that can't will be on dial-up speed. Wanna go surfing at 1200 bps again?
What was once true, is no longer so
I all honesty, what hasn't the Harper gov /not/ fucked up. In fact, every decision they've made, everything they've done, ONLY benefits the rich. Anyone surprised by this hasn't been paying attention.
Also, there's absolutely nothing that can be done. They'll just "go it alone" and do whatever they want to do anyway. All that without communicating at all with the media because they want our journalists to write down the question before press conferences and our journalists refused (yes we have real journalists here).
Hey, US people. We now have an un-government too! Now all of North America is fucked!
Once again it seems that large corporations have managed to win the day because people are stupid and/or lazy. Whenever a remotely complex topic arises, they manage to confuse the issue by making claims that the topic being discussed is really something else and they're against that something else. In this way, they and politicians lobbied by them can argue against that something else, while voting against the topic at hand. People with party loyalty can simply choose to believe them, and most everyone else is confused enough by the disconnect so that the big boys get their way.
In this instance, the issue is net neutrality. Basically, it was asserted that since much of the infrastructure was funded by the government and since many of the last-mile providers have government enforced monopolies, maybe it would be wise to ensure that companies are forbidden by law from discriminating against traffic on their network based upon who sent that traffic. For example, this would mean AT&T cannot intentionally slow down or lose VoIP packets from some company unless they treat their own VoIP traffic the same way. Let me repeat the important part here. Net neutrality is about stopping discrimination based upon who sends something, not what is being sent.
So the big companies hire some PR firms to make up a new issue, which they can claim is what the net neutrality laws are really about, and which the average person might conceivably be against (since no one in their right mind could argue that net neutrality as described above is a bad idea). So they claim that Net Neutrality is about stopping telecos from discriminating based upon the type of traffic. They use the example of file sharing networks as "bad" traffic they want to be able to run slower. They use VoIP as traffic they want to ensure runs faster. All the while they make sure to outright lie and claim that the proposed net neutrality legislation would stop Quality of Service traffic shaping.
Every time an expert looks into it, this is shown to be false. How many evaluations have we had now that say QoS is not restricted by proposed net neutrality legislation? And what about encryption? Widespread deployment of encrypted tunnels makes discriminating based upon the type of traffic useless anyway, and would certainly be adopted (and has been) to foil and attempt to use QoS to discriminate. So the entire argument is bull crap.
The net result of all of this is most people who have heard of net neutrality being completely misinformed about what it is, or scratching their heads in confusion while the large network operators laugh their asses off and prepare to discriminate against competitors and start extorting money from certain Web services providers who don't have anything to do with them other than the fact that some of their traffic ends up transiting their network, providing an opportunity to waylay it like some sort of internet highwayman. Hey Canadian government, I hope you're proud of yourselves for helping to undermine the most important innovation in the last 20 years.
Yay flamebait... but I'm cold, so what the hell.
The internet is a marketplace and the ISPs are at the doors. If you're, say, Youtube, and have a really swell stand at the market selling refrigerators, they can in theory extort money out of Youtube by not letting people in to see the refrigerators at all, or by only letting people pass through turnstiles, thereby precluidng the purchase of refrigerators.
At the same time, they can fool people coming into the market by advertising having a really big gate that funnels down to turnstiles that you can't see from the outside. You pay to pass through the big gate and are later screwed at the turnstiles because you realize there's no way you can leave with a refrigerator. All this would be fine if the number of doors was large as market forces would dictate price and availability of access, but doors are few in any one area and it's hard to build new ones.
In the long run, the market may die from this, but it may not, and at any rate I don't like the situation.
How's my analogy meter?
On the upside, if there is an upside, the days of the current Canadian government are numbered. We have what you might call a multi-party system (multi > 2) and the current party rules only on account of tentative support from other parties, and that ought to run out on one issue or another sometime this calendar year. We can only hope they don't pass any legislation regarding this (or any other) matter in the meantime.
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
... impeding competitive market outcomes....rigid net neutrality legislation may prevent such innovation. Except that user's don't have choices in ISPs. There are usually only 2: the local telecom and the local cable company. That's not enough to allow market forces to kick-in. Hence the need for regulation.
...previous business models that attempted to limit consumer access to content (e.g., AOL, Compuserve, otherwise known as 'walled gardens'), have failed... This is completely different. AOL and CompuServe were not ISPs, and they didn't advertise that they were ISPs. That was pre-internet and doesn't apply. Besides, we are talking about subtyle slowing-down internet traffic, not walling it off.
...without differentiated treatment, there may be no incentive to pay for the actual costs, resulting in under investment. The usual FUD about how Google gets a free ride, which isn't true. People think it makes sense if they don't know about peering.I wrote a quick-and-dirty anti-FUD article in an attempt to correct these misunderstandings. If anyone is fooled by the above arguemnts, point them there.
That our government - like most Western governments - is firmly in the grasp of big business, and no longer really represents the will or interests of the people. Welcome to the "Illusion of Democracy". Government seems to consistently represent the interests of corporations over the interests of the people, at least at the Federal level.
:(
Unfortunately, the Conservatives got in based on support of a lot of the older demographic, mostly in reaction to the horrid Liberal Government we had for years. The only thing I can't believe is that they were willing to elect Stephen Harper. The guy seems so insincere, so slimey, I wouldn't buy a used car from him. I can't believe hes head of the country at the moment. Its a sad period for Canada.
Time to contact your MP and protest I suppose, although I no longer have much hope that can accomplish anything. Our country seems to have the best politicians money can buy
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
If by "populists", you mean "lying assholes", then yes, you're right.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
I wonder how much a canadian MP costs. Love to buy a couple. Sad to see that Canada is for sale.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Yeah, because there are soooo many Canadian ISPs to pick from in any given city.
Remind me again what makes Canada so superior to the USA. I seem to have forgotten at the moment.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It seems clear that some Internet providers (large and small) have some interest in limiting, censoring, or otherwise filtering their customers' content. Likewise, governments appear to have little interest in banning those same providers from doing just that (not to mention little ability in drafting legislation actually aimed at banning it). Companies have all kinds of reason to limit content (which they consider a benefit to their customers), and governments have little incentive to stand in the way of what could possibly be a better system.
If providers are going to do it, and governments aren't going to stop it, what can those of us who aren't convinced this will be better do? The obvious solution is to prove the providers wrong: new providers specifically targetting customers who don't want this service. The problem is that many of the providers who want to limit content control a disproportionate amount of the Internet itself. So how about instead of trying to force providers not to limit content, governments and consumers aim to force them to provide uncensored content to other, smaller, providers?
That's it. First this right-wing government gets in, then Bev Oda starts pushing RIAA-like rules, and DMCA crap comes along.. and now anti-net-neutrality! I'm done. I'm moving to The USA where they don't have these prob.... oh... hrmm... Engla... no.. France? ehhh... Russia, here I come!
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
I completely agree that shouldn't fix a problem that doesn't exist yet, and may never exist.
I'd like to remind people that Rogers (an enormous cable internet provider in Ontario, and elsewhere) are using traffic shaping with Bit Torrent traffic. Would net neutrality fix that problem? If so, I'd say the problem is already here!
We do not need tolls on the information highway. Imagine applying the non-neutrality logic to our road systems. Cars restricted to only the inside lanes or the local roads while the big fleets dominate the middle and passing lanes because they pay a fee to get such access. No thanks. If the telcos want more revenue then they should focus on infrastructure and greater bandwidth. Whatever happened to fiber? If the Canadian government cows under then they are toast.
Without net neutrality Slashdot's parent company could have blocked any attempts by Digg to prosper. Microsoft could have blocked Google. YouTube wouldn't have amounted to much compared to Google Video. Net Neutrality helps great ideas become reality. We would never even know about many of the little startups that have become the great sites that they are today.
Matthew 10:21
I am not Canadian but it seems to me like you are having the same problem that the US is having with elections. You only have two major parties. As long as we limit ourselves to two parties and flop back and forth between them because the party we elected last term did something we didnt like, the system is never going to change. I think the only way to see real reform is to throw both parties out and find a third option. I am not sure about elections in Canada but I know it is possible for independants to run for office. I think it is high time we really taught both partys a lesson and evicted them.
I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
Oh man, Bell must be rubbing it's hands together with glee. Considering that many smaller ISPs in Canada are acutaly resellers for Bell, I wonder if this means Bell can also slow down any content that is flowing through their resellers' accounts.
The day I notice this in my day-to-day browsing is the day my ISP gets a call from a VERY pissed customer. I bet ISPs who don't do this will get a flood of people switching to them.
Sorry, but this got modded insightful?
Let's wait until we're in the middle of the problem before we look at fixing it? That's like saying don't fireproof your house until it's on fire.
This sort of reactive approach to legislation is moronic, since it's very hard to remove entrenched abuses of the public good as compared to precluding them from happening in the first place. The whole thing gets bogged down in the courts while the status quo persists in the real world.
It's obvious that what the telcos are after is revenue streams (nothing evil here, it's what all companies are after), and unless there exists legislation or profit-related reasons to prevent them they will exploit any and all control they have in any way they can conceive to further grow their revenues. Let's be clear, the only group in all this who could feasible stick up for the common good are the gov'ts involved, and only because if they don't they fear we'll vote them out of a job next election.
The ma bell comment is worth modding up.
The whole "net neutrality" debate is built on the assumption that the communication system will continue to be a either a monopoly or cartel with a very small number of players in the market.
Personally, I think the best solution to the bandwidth puzzle would be to have a vibrant infrastructure with a large number of companies providing backbone services. If there are enough players in the market, the market will help minimize prices.
With net neutrality ruling the universe, you cut out the ability for smaller providers to sneak in a grab lucrative niches here and there.
First, what do you mean here by "free market"? The only consistent definition I've run across for the term essentially means a nonaggressive market society (i.e. a society where ethical/moral behavior is defined in terms of property rights, homesteading, and contractual transfer of ownership). However, since governments are defined by "legitimate" aggression -- any organization that was not considered "legitimate", or did not employ aggression, would not be called a government -- the very existance of a government, much less government regulations, is by definition impossible in a free-market society. In a free-market society a "government" has no legitimacy -- from the definition, there can be no legitimate aggression in a free market -- and is thus no different from any other criminal organization.
On the other hand, you may have been making the common mistake of confusing "perfect competition" with "free market". That seems to occur all too frequently.
I think this is closer to the definition of the common law than to that of government. The common law is a protocol for resolving disputes -- and completely compatible with a free-market society. Government, on the other hand, does not primarily resolve disputes; it may occasionally do so, but its core purpose is closer to social engineering via organized aggression than genuine resolution of disputes between private parties.
This example is interesting because pollution was originally a common law, issue resolved through the courts; it had nothing to do with government rule-making. Some time during the Industrial Revolution, though, the courts decided to drop the property-rights approach to pollution disputes in favor of an ideology rooted in merchantilism and utilitarian calculus. (This ruling would never have been accepted in private arbitration, for obvious reasons, but this was a government court and its rulings thus generally beyond challenge.) If the courts had just done their job at the time and ruled according to property rights there wouldn't have been any opportunity for government to get involved, and the market would have remained free in that area.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
This isn't a Conservative decision. This is a decision by the CRTC. While the CRTC is technically a part of the government, it isn't even really run by the government (it's run by a judge that wasn't elected by the government). The only way the government has power over the CRTC is to pass laws to contradict what the CRTC decides, which is obviously a major pain in the ass and a very slow way of doing things. The Conservatives plan to disband the CRTC as soon as it is feasible because of this sort of stupidity, along with the fact that many Conservative supporters are immigrants and are being prosecuted for paying for foreign TV from their homeland (illegal in Canada, by CRTC rule, unless the CRTC has granted them a license to broadcast in Canada, something many stations with only a few hundred possible subscribers just don't care to do).
This is unlike all other parties that *want* the CRTC to intervene in *more* decisions because without the CRTC, according to the CRTC, we would never see another Canadian show again and all TV would come from the USA (this despite the well known fact that it is much cheaper to create shows here than in the US -- I guess Americans don't mind buying from here when it's cheap for goods [like lumber and electricity], but hey, when it comes to cheap labour and filming rights, studios love to pony up the cash to stay true to the stars and stripes. L Oh Friggin L!)
What's next, blaming the local school board for traffic jams?
You lease politicians. You can never really buy them. You lease them for a few votes then return them back to their parties - just like a leased car going back to it's dealership.
If you don't like what your ISP does, then move to another ISP, or start your own ISP!
Way to completely miss the point of what net neutrality legislation does. Allow me to explain. I pay a monthly fee to Comcast to provide me with internet access. Comcast has a peering agreement with AT&T who has a peering agreement with Sprint who has a peering agreement with Telus who has a peering agreement with RBD who Netflix buys their big internet pipes from (theoretically speaking). So My business relation ship is with Comcast. Suppose Sprint calls up Netflix and says, hey we want $10 million bucks or we're going to make your download service suck so badly no one will want to use it. Netfilx does not pay and as a result my ability to download video from Netflix suffers. Netflix, remember, has a business relationship with RBD. Does my switching to an AT&T DSL modem make any difference? Nope. Either way my service still sucks and it isn't the fault of company I'm doing business with or the one Netflix is doing business with that is the problem. So if Netflix pays, then they have to raise their rates to cover it and I end up paying more for the same service.
This has to do with people in the middle of the internet who have no direct business relationship with me or the person providing me with a Web service or any company either of us does business with breaking my service, after they've already been paid once. Theoretically, Comcast could complain to AT&T who could complain to Sprint to try to get them to not do that, but realistically, you could be four or five contract agreements removed from the company that is causing the problem and the market cannot work efficiently enough with that much intervening bureaucracy.
Now do you understand?
Find your MP and put the pressure on, please. I've already called mine (Laurie Hawn), to find his position on the debate. The rep at his office had never heard of the Net Neutrality issue. While I hope this isn't common, I wouldn't be surprised. If your MP is a Conservative, put the pressure about how damaging this will be to small businesses, startups, and our fancy new "Knowledge-based economy" idea. It may be easier to convince the Liberal or NDPs about how damaging this could be to the consumer. I urge EVERY Canadian on Slashdot to put in a courtesy call or two to their local Member of Parliament. While you're at it, contact your MLA to see if you can help pressure your provincial government as well. I'll include links:
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland
Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia
Nunavut Territory
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Yukon Territory
Actually NDP and libs were about neck and neck during the last election (within a few percentage points). No one really noticed because the big story was the conservatives winning. The NDPs greatest obstacle is getting the Canadian population to stop believing that the NDP will never win. They have alot of support. On top of that, because of our stupid voting system, there are ALOT of would-be NDP voters who are scared of the conservative party winning, and end up voting strategically in favour of libs. It is worth noting that all of our small useless parties are left leaning. It is also worth noting that our one big right leaning party was formed by combining two smaller right leaning parties. You can thank our voting system for this stupid states of affairs where the majority of Canadians are clearly and decisively left leaning, but we are ruled by a minority conservative government. Crappy.
I am a bit disappointed in the federal government now though..
I am more than a bit disappointed with this government. Besides hacking away at social programs, increasing taxes for the lowest bracket ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/01/06/taxes-tor
- Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society...
- I don't know all the facts o-n Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.
- I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage.
-
In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
- "I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians
I have nothing else to add except that I am saddened by the current leadership of my country .STFU, all of you, we all know this is slashdot and no one here gets laid nearly ever !!! Let alone watch hockey or football. Now go play world of warcraft!
lol.. This isn't neccesarily any problem at all. The problem is that the argument against net tutrality can actualy be seen in a way that doesn't hurt consumers. In the process of delivering it this way, it also can make the argument for net nutrality seem rediculous. And when this happens, one has to wonder why net nutrality should be supported.
The american FCC chairman said it best and the telco's are adopting a position simular to it. As long as the comitment to the consumer is met, there shouldn't be a problem. So the telco's are saying that if they sell you s a customer 3 eg access. You will always have files at 4 meg reguardless of were they come from. No without net nutrality, It will be possible to charge google a fee and get their services delivered at 4 or 5 meg with the priority being delivering their content at that speed compared to other actions/services the user/customer might be doing/using. And we structure this to pay for needed upgrades that will bring better services to the customer. In this scenario how could you lose? You still get high speed and google get a better presence.
The problem lyes were the scenarios being presented don't show the history of telcos publicly claiming they want to get rid of competing services using this same method. If you take the stated positions form previous engagments literaly, you will notice they want to give you 4 meg access, limit how fast google will present services to below this 3 meg unless they pay a tax on top of the service. So in order for the customer to recieve thier agreed apon service from the telco/ISP, someone will either have to pay or suffer delivery problems. And the politicians don't know this as well as the other side isn't preenting it directly to them in a way they can understand.
In the end, the net nutrality concerns apear to be based on the complexity of getting a better service to market as well as extra expense of negotiating the new speeds with all the networks it passes though.
In reality, the telco's have been succesful in taking the meat from the complaints of the net nutrality crowd, at least from the surface. You don't need to be utra conservative or ultra liberal to see this either. You may have a few politicians who are more up to speed on the real issues but they are either unconvinced of the real problems or unable to present them in a convincing way to their collegues. The telco's even made the claim it would cost the consumers more money if net nutrality to happen. For this to be true, then they mudt be convinved that a raise in rates will happen and the only decision will be to charge service providers more or the consumer. Net Nutrality would mean every consumer.
So instead of blaming this on a political party, lets look at the efforts being made, forget we already know the details and device how to make hanges or develope a program that is simple enough for all the outsiders to see the problem as it is (or we fear it is) and the best solution is our way (net nutrality). It doesn't matter what lobby they love, If we present the facts properly to the people, they will find it neccesary to follow their will or look like someone shilling for greedy companies. And no, calling them evil and greedy isn't going to be enough on their own.
I'm definitely disturbed by this news. However, this is more a case of TELUS flexing their political muscle than Harper flexing his non-existent political muscle. Technically TELUS already violates net neutrality; there's a special gateway for routing Google (traceroute www.google.ca from the TELUS network). Not surprisingly, no one has complained yet.
d ian-customers yet, but this is definitely the writing on the wall. I haven't said it in a while, but they definitely deserve it for this bullshit: Screw you TELUS! I haven't wanted to give you money in 5 years, and this is yet another reason I don't. Burn in hell beside Microsoft and Novell!
However, TELUS has a terrible tendency to overcompensate when they actually do something. Don't like certain servers sitting on residential line? Block incoming ports on residential service and call it an anti-virus policy. I don't want to pay TELUS anything and still have DSL service -- not possible because you need a phone line and you can only get one from TELUS. They just lurk in the shadows for ages, then BAM! they have a policy they want implemented -- and it happens. Keep in mind that the infrastructure that made TELUS big was paid for largely by Canadian Taxpayers and now once again, we have to sit back and watch TELUS make self-serving decisions with property that was given to them by the Canadian Public.
This is crap. I don't care if Google loads 2ms faster or is available even when other sites are not. We haven't seen the pay-TELUS-or-your-blog-gets-slow-delivery-to-Cana
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully