Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Debate Intensifies In Canada
MrShaggy tips us to news that the debate over Net Neutrality in Canada is coming to the forefront following the recent discovery that Bell Canada was throttling P2P traffic on the access it had sold to wholesalers. Michael Geist's blog notes a video recording of comments from a member of the Canadian government, as well as coverage from Canadian media. From Ars Technica:
"The Canadian government has in the past pushed the CRTC to deregulate the telecom industry, an approach still backed by Minister of Industry Jim Prentice. Prentice also wants to stay out of the current net neutrality debate, which would seem to be a de facto vote against the idea. He was asked in the House of Commons this week whether his government would do anything about the current Bell/Rogers traffic-shaping controversy. According to the Globe & Mail, Prentice said only that "we will continue to leave the matter between consumers on the one hand and Internet service providers on the other."
"The Canadian government has in the past..."
Does that only strike me as having come straight out of a South Park episode?
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Is anyone else really confused about these ISP's aren't being sued to oblivion for breach of contract?? I'm no expect(ok, I work with wan lines pretty often, but still), but if I have a serious line(say, a t3?) and I find out the SOB ISP is throttling ANY of my data(or even reading it), I will bring an unholy hell of a lawsuit upon them. The likes of which makes most lawyer's cry themselves to sleep. What the hell is going on??
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Step 2: Vast personal monetary gains for the executives and the FCC.
c++;
This is a case where a problem is being solved by law vice technical means.
Much like the SPAM problem, you'll never be able to legislate the Internet.
Consumers should vote with their money. If ISP#1 is throttling, then stop subscribing. No other ISPs in the area? Get satellite access.
In the mean time, engineers should start working on things like TOR, Freenet, and encryption to ensure that the content on the wires stays free.
In any event, if you allow government to make inroads into what can and can't be legislated online, pretty soon, they'll legislate everything.
This is one Pandora's Box that should not be opened.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Especially in a market dominated by a very small number of giants. When there's no competition, there's no way for consumers to vote with their wallets other than to do without internet access entirely.
I'm fortunate to live in an area where there are *two* competing monolithic ISP's, but if they happened to both engage in these practices I'd be hooped.
We cut past the #. ??? problem and now we're already making profit in step 2! We are improving on these step by step methods.
It would appear that developing business methods in an open manner actually works.
that block of uninteresting, unfunny gibberish that must have taken you some time to compose is what you do with your spare time. why? is your life so empty? i don't understand "trolling organisations". It's not like its even funny - it rarely even makes sense. weird.....
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
i wish they'd just get on with it, also need to give up the loony....
The solution is easy... Canada should go on strike! To get more! More money! Like like, Internet money! Yeah that's it!
... I already wrote to Prentice (prentice.J@parl.gc.ca) to point out that leaving consumers to face a "last mile" duopoly (Rogers and Bell in my case) is insane. If there were competition on the last mile I wouldn't be nearly as upset.
I'd invite any other Canadian "consumers" who have traffic shaping on their "last mile", to do the same!
This is one of (many) places where conservative economic/free market politics just don't work.
While the right wing economists tout the free market as the solution to everything, arguing that an unregulated market is the only way to approach pretty much everything, there are cases where the market is dominated by 1/2/3 players that cannot be avoided. We, as consumers, are not able to vote with our dollars - we have no choice. We did have a choice - Bell was allowing ISPs to resell DSL and manage the data themselves, but when they realized that meant that people (who know/care about such things) were flocking to the unrestricted ISPs, they squashed that avenue to unrestricted net access.
The other competitor, Rogers, hasn't opened their network up to competition (that i know of), so they can do whatever they feel like.
That leaves us with the occasional small wireless isp with leases lines, satellite (slow), or of course, leasing our own line. Yes - we have options, but no, none of them are good for the consumer. Without government regulation, and with the small size of our market (ie: very little competition), the few major ISPs will control our destinies, and it's only a matter of time until they start with tiered data speed.
Web - sure, fast as you'd like, it's highly compressible, proxyable, no big deal.
Email - sure, but you can only have small attachments, but we'd prefer you use our free webmail service.
Music? Only if you buy from our store (or from stores that we have deals with), otherwise, we're going to filter you. Otherwise, we'll limit you.
Video? Only if you buy from our store (or from stores we have deals with). Otherwise, no bandwidth for you.
Overall data? Sure, your unlimited plan will apply, if you shop in our stores. Otherwise, here's a cap. enjoy!
I think the real problem is that Bell/Rogers/etc have been severely overselling their networks without paying the money to upgrade them. Our monthly fees have been slowly creeping up instead of dropping (you'd think I could get high speed internet for cheaper now than I did 10 years ago, but you'd be wrong, for the same level of service). Our connection quality has been dropping. The service level at the ISPs is consistently poor. However, Rogers and Bell are turning out huge profits every quarter. Why? Because they've managed to find a way to provide the minimum of service for the maximum of profit, and their shareholders love it. And ultimately, in todays world, the shareholder is the more important measure of a business than their customers. So long as the share prices stay up, the businesses will continue to do whatever they want. Once the prices start to slip, and they will, or once a better level of competition is introduced/forced, then we might see customer focus becoming a priority.
There are some that say any regulation in business is bad for the economy, that we should let businesses set their policies, and the customers will go where they feel is best. But when there are no reasonable choices, when there is no competition, then the customer loses and big business wins. The government must step in and regulate, until such time as market conditions exist to enable the free market to take a go at managing themselves again.
Positive reinforcement hasn't worked so far, it's time for negative reinforcement. Bad doggy, no treat for you.
$0.02 CDN.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
AC has nailed the heart of the issue.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Also this month (April), Rogers is implementing capping on high speed Cable internet access. There will be billed charges starting now so that one can see traffic overage. These charges will be refunded on the bill for three months, then (July) they will not be refunded. Yahoo.
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
Ahhh, spoken like somebody who truly doesn't know what they're talking about.
First of all, Bell owns pretty much all the lines, the "last mile" required for any ADSL connection. That leaves pretty much Roger's as their only major competition, as they are a cable-internet provider (they are not a consumer).
There are many other ISP's that offer ADSL services, but they all use Bell lines, and the big issue currently is that Bell is throttling the traffic of their customers. Many of these companies, such as my own provider - Teksavvy - offer reasonable and good service, and have been quite vocal about how Bell is interfering with their services.
So really, the only choice other than Bell is... well.. Rogers. Unfortunately Roger's has a lack of affordable premium options (static IP's, etc), also throttles, port-blocks, and is in general known for service no better than Bell.
That means that:
viable options for the average consumer = 0
The saddest part is that Bell is still getting a cut from all the companies that are leasing lines to provide ADSL service, while doing almost nothing themselves. I would know, because as I've mentioned before, I'm on an ADSL connection that is craptastically slow due to the fact that Bell has overextended the connection to their CO, rather than adding a local repeater/node.
The only other option I could think of would be the local hydro company's (in Toronto at least) wireless offerings, but unfortunately those only work in certain areas, and mine isn't one of them (I've heard that the service is fairly decent though).
What are the laws under which these ISPs operate, both in Canada and the United States? Are they anything like the other utilities, which actually are monopolies because they were legally granted the ability to operate without competition?
What about their political influence? Have they been able to get laws passed that would limit or hinder competitors?
In a geographical area with 20+ restaurants in seemingly every small city, what is it that makes these guys the only game in town? Because if we figure that out, we might be able to open the doors up for ISPs that would be more friendly to their customers. And if we don't, they're going to keep getting more powerful.
Yes, it is your torrent client's fault. Because a torrent client is on 24/7 and opens up hundreds of connections at a time, it grabs an unfair proportion of the bandwidth. By contrast, a web browser only opens 2-4 connections at a time, and once it has completed fetching the page, it disconnects.
See http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080327-one-technical-key-to-net-neutrality-solving-tcp-congestion.html
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
While I wouldn't be so hasty to jump on the conservative hate-wagon, I have to agree that Mr. Jim Prentice is a gigantic waste of governmental space. The man has proven time and time again that he serves only the interests of big business, and in his tenure in office hasn't done a single thing for us consumers. If this was my country I'd have the man tried for treason - he's failing to represent not only his constituents, but ALL constituents in Canada.
So what you're suggesting is that TS tries to form a deal with Rogers (which is known to have as many or more issues than Bell), then switches their infrastructure from ADSL to Cable (which likely involves switching customers over as well). Not to mention the issues with areas that may have ADSL service but not cable?
Yeah... great idea.
Here's another possible issue. If I understand correctly (I'm not yet throttled), the way that Bell's traffic shaping works is that once a certain protocol is detected (Bittorrent, for example), the entire DSL service is slowed down to something like 30KB/s.
So here's a scenario: I'm downloading a torrent of 'Canada's next great prime minister' (ha!), so Bell is throttling my connection. Suddenly, I suffer a medical emergency and need to call 911. I use VOIP for my telephone service (since Bell doesn't offer the kind of features I want). Since my connection speed is now artificially capped for ALL protocols, just how well is that phone call going to sound? Will the operator even be able to understand me? Am I expected to go to my computer and stop my download first?
(Yes, I do use QOS on my router to prioritize VOIP calls over all other traffic, but I have no idea how well this will work in a throttled condition)
Might be a good time to start up a ISP that doesn't throttle.
Actually, in my business life, I'm part of "big/medium business". My business interests generally align with my personal interests. So far I've seen little evidence that Mr. Prentice has taken my comments seriously, either from a business or a personal perspective, so I wouldn't say it is because he is all for big business.
While I was formerly an active PC member, I have no interest in this Conservative Party. They aren't making friends even in places they should be.
Agreed. I had high hopes for the Conservatives, hoping they would represent a sane alternate to the spend-spend-spend Liberals. A party that represents sane social policies, at the same time advocating fiscal responsibility.
Sadly, there doesn't seem to be room for fiscal conservatives anymore... I can't have the fiscal responsibility without the crazy religious fanaticism, or the endless kowtowing to the elite.
I was intrigued by a comment some Finnish person posted a few days ago. Apparently the government owns the copper and then private companies offer services. What's wrong with a little mixed economy action?
Of course I would never advocate smashing a whole lot of expensive Rogers/Bell equipment..that would be illegal.
Instead you should follow the laws made by your corporate masters and again pay more for less. Don't endanger their profits by defacing everything with their logos on it with obscene words. What ever you do don't break their equipment or they'll never make higher and higher profits off your back.
Our laws were made for the good of all greedy thieving corporations. Who are we to question them?
If these corporations aren't given carte blanche to do what ever they want then they won't be able to create new jobs..you know..in India.
Just smile, grab your ankles and pretend you're an American..soon you will be.
Funny you refer to the Liberals as "spend-spend-spend". They were the ones who brought in balanced budgets for many years (although much credit should go to the PCs for setting the groundwork and taxation (and biting the bullet) on this initially) and the Conservatives have done some of the dumbest things with our money I've seen, for political optics.
Reducing the GST instead of reducing income taxes (everywhere else in the world it is recognized this is a poor move for the economy)is perhaps the dumbest move of all. If anything they should have increased GST and decreased income taxes even further.
What can I say; the Conservative Party make no sense whatsoever. They are just pandering to the lowest common denominator, and I'll vote Liberal or Green (as they are fiscally conservative, or have been) long before I'll support the Conservatives.
Agreed. I had high hopes for the Conservatives, hoping they would represent a sane alternate
Sane? You mean sane like Bush, right? Here's what I don't get:
If people ('hoping for sanity') such as you voted for the current 'ruling' malignancy in Ottawa (and I'll assume for sake of argument that you did), did you not take a few minutes to do some research before you placed your X on the ballot? Did you just buy the advertising? Did you just cross your fingers, hold your breath, click your heals and hope?
The dull, old, ineffectual (but relatively patriotic) "Progressive Conservative" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) party of such great leaders as Bribe-me Mulrooney was co-opted by the former Alliance/Reform party which is a group of right-wing extremists whose roots are in the same neo-conservative stink-tanks that produced the slow-motion disaster south of the border. Just because they put on funny masks and carried around fool's staffs so that they looked like the old Joke Clark "Progressive Conservatives" doesn't make them so. They are extremists out to scorch the earth on behalf of globalized big-business and the rich that bought them, just as was done in the US.
It is amazing to me how the neo-cons were able to exploit the same knee-jerk emotion, naiivete and incuriousness in Canadians that they did 6 years before in Americans, combined with a minor scandal (again, just like the US) to co-opt the government. Really, you were pissed about the Liberal add business right? So was I, but how much were you out of pocket on it, Maybe $10? And did you even notice that Gomery ehonerated the then-current Liberal government of Paul Martin? And this was worth turning over the country over to a neo-con conspiracy out to sell the country out lock, stock and barrel to the highest bidders, while simualtaneously trying to ease the country in the same direction that has proven so fruitful for the robber-barons and military-industrial complex in the US?
Do us all a favour next time and stay home on election day.
Bell now also wants to limit the amount of downloads you can make per billing period and charge $5 per gigabyte download over that limit. Up to something like $30 extra. But who says it will stay at a maximum of $30.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
There are many ISPs, however in Toronto, there is only one that provides internet over Cable, that is Rogers, all other are either too small or provide cable internet over Rogers. Rogers traffic shapes.
Then there are tons and tons of ISPs that provide DSL, about 500+ last I checked. They use Bell's infrastructure for the last mile to consumer. Bell being arses that they are have also started traffic shaping bandwidth to ALL of these ISPs, even though they only provide the last mile.
Bell's excuse is that the contract between Bell and third party ISPs clearly states that Bell will maintain their own network, hence they traffic shape third part ISP traffic.
Now the real reason why they do this. As you stated the consumer will switch to other ISPs, its a free market. This was hurting bell, they put a stop to it by traffic shaping other ISPs that go over their DSLAMs, i.e. every DSL provider.
So NO, there won't be another ISP, at least not big enough to hurt bell's bottom line.
The Baltimore Business Journal has discovered the story and does a good job of explaining the stakes for small business.
hey, arsewipe! You are supposed to be representing us, the consumers, not them the ISPs. Stupid fcuking conservative cunts.
Salut,
Jacques
I'm happy that people are starting to get upset about this. The 3 major telecom companies in Canada have a pretty sick monopoly on the internet and cellular business. We need to get someone new here-and not just another puppet company that leases their towers from Bell, Rogers, or Telus. We need someone whose bottom line is not influenced by these crooks. Heck, we need as many of them as we can get.
Unfortunately that involves finding someone who wants to invest in building towers across some of the largest stretches of untamed wilderness in the world to service one of the world's sparsest population densities...hmm.
Actually, I was (and still am) generally a NDP supporter, which begs the question of why I voted for the Conservatives in the last election.
In short, I felt that government (regardless of party) was like an ill-mannered child. The only way for a lesson to sink in was to remove their privileges. The Martin government was knee-deep in corruption, and I absolutely do not buy the hogwash that the advertisement scandal didn't go all the way to the highest levels of government. Many peons sacrificed their careers to shield their Liberal masters up above, and I didn't think it was fair to vote for the party again, even if they do represent most of my political and social views. To do so would be akin to supporting corruption.
Maybe it's just me, but I want a government that is clean, more so than I want one that represents all of my interests. I'd rather live in a neo-con paradise with integrity, than a left wing utopia without.
Not to mention the fact that it did turn out for the better, IMHO. A minority government of any leaning is IMHO better than a majority government for any party. Radical bills are curbed, and only bills that have common ground with multiple parties stand, as it should be.
Do me a favour by shutting the fuck up about telling me what to do with *my rights*. Mr. high and mighty about his politics thinks I shouldn't vote because the means by which I arrive at my choice for candidates does not coincide with his.
yawn
The concept of net neutrality sounds wonderful ... All Bits are Created Equal. What I don't see from many posters here is an understanding of the impact.
For example, let's say using some high-tech high-bandwidth device a doctor in Toronto wants to perform a medical procedure on a patient in some remote location in the Yukon. And at the same time some amazing new footage of Britney Spears comes out on Youtube.
Would it be unreasonble to support a higher quality of service for a critical function, understanding that this higher quality of service would cost more? ...
Having said this, I do think it's the responsibility of the ISP to clearly state what limitations are imposed on a customer who's promised 6-10M download for $30/mo.
Who eliminated the deficit following that spending orgy?
Jean Chrétin, of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Now, everyone bitches about the liberals for the sponsorship scandal. How much money did that involve? 120 millions?
Now, who stole 45 billion paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund by the canadian WORKERS (just the WORKERS, not a cent was paid by their bosses) in order to PAY FOR THE Conservatives expenditures? Paul Martin from the Liberal Party of Canada, while he was Chrétin's finance sinister.
Now, as a conservative, you should applaud the efforts made to have the POOR PEOPLE PAY FOR LOWERING THE TAXES OF THE RICH, by a liberal government.
So, how come you are STILL a conservative after that? It is either because you are stupid or because you are ignorant.
The industry minister's response is like saying in the controversy concerning battles at the arena, the Industry Minister said "we will continue to leave the matter between the Christians on the one hand and the lions on the other".
Cost is *not* the issue. The issue is that Bell has a *legally mandated monopoly* so it is *illegal* for anybody else to install last mile DSL lines. Rogers has the same on TV cable. Every major Telco and Cable company has the same legislation in the markets they control. Crying about how the free market would/could/doesn't work is irrelevant when there is no free market.
I'm a Rogers subscriber with the "Extreme" package which is just in name, not extreme at all.. the recent letter I got stated the following. "Extreme Plus Monthly Rate: $99.95 Speed: 18MBps Upload: 1Mbps Usage Allowance; 95GB Additional Usage Per GB: $1.25 Extreme Monthly Rate: $54.95 Speed: 10MBps Upload: 1Mbps Usage Allowance; 95GB Additional Usage Per GB: $1.50" With The extreme package I used to have a 110GB monthly allowance, they have decided to go a head and lower that limit... the Subject of the e-mail was "To Continue to meet your needs." How the hell is lowering my service package from what it used to be meeting my needs?? Who the hell wants to pay $99 a month to get the faster speed?? So they can reach their Monthly limit sooner?? To Icing on the top of the cake is the POP UP!!!. Yes now they Inject a Pop up on you're screen as you browse to show you that you are reaching the limit. I tried clicking on the disable option that they have but it does not work. So now every website I try to visit I get this annoying popup which slows down my browsing.