Slashdot Mirror
Canadians Organizing a Rally For Net Neutrality
taylortbb writes "Canadians are fighting back against Bell Canada's traffic shaping (recentlly discussed by Slashdot here and here) by organizing a rally in support of network neutrality. The rally is being backed by a long list of organizations including Google, two major political parties, three ISPs, and two major unions. It's set for Tuesday at 11:30am on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The only question that remains is, will the government listen?"
sounds great and all, but not all of us can pack up and head to ottawa everytime these issues need to be brought forth, would not these demonstrations carry more weight if they were occuring in multiple venues simultaneously?
the blocking ISP as operating under Bush orders to weaken canadian economy. Then, the government will not just listen but act ;-)
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Given an infinite number of deaf monkeys, yes, eventually.
This theory may explain the increasing size of government.
No. I've already been in contact with the Conservative party, and their position is that Bell isn't violating the CRTC guidelines and that there is plenty of competition - you can always go to satellite.
I wanted to strangle my MP, but at least he bothered to call up party HQ and get a reasoned response.
I have now received some information regarding Bell Canada and your email about their engagement in anti-competitive behaviour by controlling or "shaping" of traffic of independent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provide service through wholesale access to Bell's digital subscriber line (DSL) network from Industry Canada. I hope that this helps.
As you may be aware, consumer Internet services are not regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), as it has found this market to be sufficiently competitive to protect the interests of users. Indeed, the competition between telephone and cable networks, as well as satellite, wireless, and other players, has ensured Canadians have a variety of choices in terms of both price and quality when selecting an ISP.
The Competition Bureau ensures that prices in all sectors of the economy, except those that are regulated, are set by market forces and are not the result of anti-competitive behaviour. Under the abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act, it is illegal for a dominant firm to be engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts resulting in a substantial lessening of competition, including disciplining or targeting competitors in order to raise prices or reduce customer choice. Since Bell is engaging in traffic "shaping" across its network-in other words, providing the same service to both its own customers and to independent ISPs-it does not appear that Bell is currently engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts contrary to the Act.
The CRTC does regulate wholesale access by independent ISPs to high-speed Internet access services from both telephone and cable companies. Under the CRTC's regulatory framework for wholesale services, Bell is required to provide access to their DSL network to independent ISPs at regulated rates and terms of service. If the CRTC finds Bell or any other network operator to be in violation of these terms or otherwise engaging in unjust discrimination or undue preference, the CRTC has the power to address these issues under the Telecommunications Act.
Should you believe carriers are engaging in unjust discrimination and undue preference, I encourage you to contact the CRTC at 1-877-249-2782 or by e-mail at info@crtc.gc.ca. Please note that the Canadian Association of Internet Providers has made an application on this basis to the CRTC requesting to resolve this issue.
Sincerely,
Carolyn
Carolyn Brown - Administrator - Constituency Office
David Sweet MP - Ancaster Dundas Flamborough Westdale
If we put Government in charge of the Internet we will never stop them from imposing their will on us through it.
The internet can not be any more neutral than when it is left to markets.
The problem with it at the moment, is it is already too regulated in most countries. (Eg, the US)
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Seriously this is not about putting the government in charge, its about allowing the internet to remain open. How in the world would it be more neutral if the markets get their way? The markets are proving they can not stay neutral, they want more money without doing any work such as upgrading infrastructure. Obviously, they can't stay neutral because they will always choose what makes them more money, thats not neutral. If the government steps in and says "quit messing with the traffic that goes through the tubes" that will force them to stay neutral.
Really, not everything the government does is this horrible plot to enslave humanity and yes, corporations step out of line from time to time and need to be slapped back down. This is a perfect example of such a time.
Traffic shaping and deep packet inspection are nothing new for some Canadians. Close to three years ago I canceled my Rogers Cable Internet service because they were using deep packet inspection to throttle torrent traffic. I hate the restrictions, and hope that the CRTC will implement a rule for Net Neutrality, but the chances of this happening are next to nil. I'd like to say that people should cancel their service with these providers and move to a less restrictive service, but the number of choices available for open ISPs in Canada is shrinking every day. The ISP I switched to Storm was recently bought out by a larger carrier ExplorNet, and my fear is that my service will see changes as well. The only thing we can hope for, truely is that Michael Geist can defend our right to a Internet devoid of the restrictions and practices that the major ISP are forcing their paying subscribers to live by.
PS you have no idea what "Blitzkrieg" means, please stop misusing the term, or at least learn to spell it correctly. Hint: speed and movement, not concentration of firepower.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I think the government will listen. They might not act, but they will listen (while trying to ignore).
Rallies like this usually get a good amount of attention. Furthermore, there is some political backing (check out the speaker list) and there has already been a lot of coverage for this rally before it has begun. Plus, being on the Hill, it draws a lot of public attention from newspapers, local workers, etc.. Every time a protest comes through the downtown core, I can hear it and always wonder what it's about.
So even if the government does nothing immediately, which is expected, this rally has already been extremely successful at bringing the issue to the Canadian public. This is all over the news and will be throughout the day. I would call that a success already.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
net neutrality won't mean a god damn if net privacy tools and net privacy in general are completely destroyed by canada's participation with ACTA.
Maybe they should be frying both fish in the same pan here?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Action: Bell throttles their own traffic, blocks ports, etc, causing massive irritation/disruption to their own customers
Result: Customers leave Bell for ISP's that aren't interfering with their traffic
Action: Bell then institutes throttling and other abusive behavior against the other ISP's customers
Result: Customers have nowhere to go. Other ISP's may not lose so many customers (because there's no good alternative), but they also wouldn't gain the customers that would otherwise be coming in because of superior service.
In a nutshell, the third-party ISP's need to use Bell's infrastructure. As such, they cannot offer anything better than Bell in those regards. Their main competing points were the additional features offered that Bell was not offering (or was cutting back on), with non-throttled service being one of the key points. As Bell has removed their ability to offer such service, they have, in-fact, removed the third-party ISP's as competitors in this arena.
How is this NOT anti-competitive? Is it OK so long as it's "we're going to make everyone suck as much as us so that customers don't move elsewhere" instead of "we're going to make everyone else suck more so that customers come to us instead"
Both are equally anti-competitive and discriminatory.
Has ACTA gone through yet?
The fact that people are starting to demonstrate that "we are aware of what's going on, we're watching, and we're not happy" should give the government an idea that stupid decisions about internet and telecommunications will get a negetive reaction from voters. Perhaps it will influence them not to approve idiotic new bills or trade provisions.
I walked up to the Hill on my lunch break. There were 300 people or so (rough estimate), some clever signs, and media coverage - TV and newspaper.
Apparently the first batch of speakers spoke right away and were finished by the time I got there. Everyone was waiting for Mauril Belanger (liberal MP) who was expected to speak at 12:45.
At 12:40 rally organizers tried to get the crowd pumped up with cries of "Who's net? OUR NET!" and "Our net... NOT FOR SALE!". I had to go back to the office, but you could hear their shouts echoing off the buildings for a few blocks... pretty cool!
Hopefully it raises the issue to the awareness of the general public. Most people seem to have no idea whatsoever that Net Neutrality is even an issue, let alone an important one.
And the lines are run through public property.
Thats like saying for the government you dont have to obey the rules of the road because you bought a car (private property) but everywhere you use it on the roads is public property.
Basically they've been given money to build infrastructure and keep it up to date... If they cant handle streaming video and torrents and what not then obvious they've failed to keep it up to date. Maybe a legislative smackdown telling them they cant fiddle with throttling will encourage them to upgrade the infrastructure once again rather than milk it for all its worth like Comcast in the states.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Do you not agree that "last mile" carriers for both DSL and cable actively throttling and using DPI to shape the traffic of their wholesale customers creates a situation where I cannot get unfucked-with bandwidth at a reasonable cost? Now I don't quite agree that unfucked-with bandwidth is necessarily a right, but when the government-sanctioned monopolies of the last mile are also a supplier to the end-user, I think that is an unfair market, and *that* is something the government is in control of.
I'm genuinely curious if Bell believes that DPI and throttling of their commercial customers (not just their wholesale providers) is acceptable, too. I.e. if I get my own 10 meg LAN extension to a server at 151 Front, and my provider there is cross-connected with Bell... would Bell feel justified in throttling traffic to/from my IP into their network?