Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Bill Introduced In Canadian Parliament
FeatherBoa points out that the New Democratic Party in Canada has introduced legislation to limit the amount of control Canadian ISPs can exert over their subscribers. The bill would amend the Telecommunications Act to "prohibit network operators from engaging in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership or destination, subject to certain exceptions." Support for net neutrality in Canada has been building for quite a while now. Quoting CBC News:
"'This bill is about fairness to consumers,' said Charlie Angus, the NDP's digital spokesman. It also looks to prohibit 'network operators from preventing a user from attaching any device to their network and requires network operators to make information about the user's access to the internet available to the user.' The proposed bill makes exception for ISPs to manage traffic in reasonable cases, Angus said, such as providing stable speeds for applications such as gaming or video conferencing."
Just what are these "certain exceptions"? The very fact there are exceptions, even if they aren't related to freedoms now, should be a little worrying, since the exceptions can probably be added to.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Disclaimer: I'm a card-carrying NDP member.
Now on to things...
I was at the TekSavvy Net Neutrality rally in Ottawa on May 27th. While it was a great rally, we found ourselves competing against a parliamentary sex scandal for press coverage. Sex sells. Arcane concepts like net traffic throttling don't, so much.
Let's look at reality. Customers of most ISPs in Canada are now traffic-shaped, with a few exceptions:
Videotron[Cable] (which substitutes shaping for a 50GB usage cap on a 50Mbps/1Mbps Docsis2.0 connection)
Telus[DSL]
A few ISPs such as Primus[DSL-wholesaler] and Colba[DSL-wholesaler] with their own equipment in Bell DSLAMS
There's a workaround to bypass Bell's throttling using MLPPP, only for subscribers to TekSavvy[DSL-wholesaler], but it requires some Linux-savvy or a modded router. To their credit, I believe Acanac[DSL-wholesaler] has set up an ssh tunnel for the same effect.
Otherwise, Bell[DSL] and Rogers[Cable] both shape encrypted traffic on their networks.
I see a lot of opposition for Net Neutrality regulations from people concerned about their impact on VOIP and such. Well, that's what exceptions in the law are for! Good on the NDP for finally stepping up to bat on this issue. That makes them the only party in parliament who can be bothered to take notice.
To anyone still opposed: Look at the massive, pervasive presence of the Internet in people's everyday lives, especially those under 30. It's about time we started treating it as an essential service. It's become one. Essential services (generally) have their quality regulated by government, and this bill is a step in the right direction.
Let's face facts. Canada is falling behind in the quality and penetration of broadband service. It's time to force the greedy telcos to invest in infrastructure instead of trying to save money by throttling their users and degrading the network for everyone!
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
The point of the bill is to ensure that network flow happens in whatever way is most beneficial to the people instead of whatever way makes the most money for the ISP. Do you seriously think that there is no case in which the population experiences a gain from carefully exercised traffic shaping?
That's the bill in question.
In the highly unlikely event that this private members bill makes it through to royal assent, it will have almost no effect. Telecoms will all make use of the exception in clause 2, subsection a:
Even if that were the case, it's means to an end.
If people supported a cure for HIV because they thought it helped the production of honey, would it matter?
'Reasonable cases' is in the area of VOIP.
One of the biggest concerns is the use of VOIP and the internet interfering with it. Some providers offer a VOIP based service with their internet package.
This is the 'exception' case that is to be allowed.
I just don't see how or why people like to scream bloody-fucking-murder on everything. The point is that for once someone (well, a group of people) is finally taking notice to an issue that has been around for a while. I know it's slashdot, but please... grow up.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Most "backbone" ISPs around the world are former government monopolies that have been privatised. They are still reaping the benefits of being a former legally-mandated monopoly.
If there was any real competition in the expensive telecommunications infrastructure market, then net neutrality wouldn't be an issue. Until there is, we need this.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Yes. Motive always matters at some level.
Put identity in the browser.
VOIP might be a reasonable case for prioritising a single protocol, but unless the bill spells specifically states VOIP and nothing else, then it seems likely that the telcos will continue as they are now, and claim each instance of throttling is allowed under the "reasonable cases" provision.
Hence the question - who decides what's a reasonable case? You clearly have your opinion, the ISPs will almost certainly have a different one, their customers are likely to have yet another, and the opinion that matters will likely end up being that of a judge - which may or may not reflect the intent of the bill. If the author had listed specific cases then this bill might have some value. As it is, it stands an evens chance of enshrining into law the ISPs right to tamper and throttle to their hearts' content.
I don't think "who decides what is reasonable" a particularly childish question. Rather, it cuts to the core of the matter: if this bill is to achieve its apparently purpose, then which cases are and are not reasonable need to be specified with far greater precision.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
You know, I could make a ton of money if I wanted to - just stand in a busy shopping street with a handgun and demand money from passers-by. Anyone causes trouble, I could just shoot them. It's just the governments unwarranted interference with a free market that stops me. If they didn't make murder, robbery and extortion illegal, then I could clean up.
That's the trouble with taking free market politics too religiously. You need a certain amount of government interference to establish the marketplace in the first place. Otherwise, the guys with the biggest clubs and the flimsiest morals just go around raping everyone they meet, and then boast about it in interviews with Fortune magazine.
I think every piece of regulation is different from all the others. We have weights and measures laws, because merchants used to routinely cheat their customers, boosting their short term finances to the detriment of the economic system as a whole We have regulations about what you can put in foodstuffs, because unscrupulous vendors have shown a willingness to boost their profit by using ingredients that are addictive, toxic, or both.
It seems a dangerous oversimplification to say that all government regulation is harmful, just as it seems equally foolish to claim that regulation is always beneficial. I think we have to consider each proposal on its merits.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Has the brainwashing gone so deep? Libertarians are the worst kind of corporate-enslaved drones, because they have somehow been convinced being ruled by oligarchic, greed-driven, psychopathic organizations is a good thing.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
These regulations' only justification was the inherent inflexibility of the particular markets. If a consumer dies from food poisoning, he will not be able to switch to a different supplier. If a building collapses, (most of) its occupants will not be able to opt for a better builder next time. This provides some justification to government's preemptive interference in some cases.
Internet Service Provision is vastly different. A dissatisfied customer remains perfectly healthy and is able to switch to a competitor very quickly. Ensuring availability of wide variety of such competitors is what government should concentrate on.
Instead, we may well get saddled with very few very big ISPs, who will negotiate a (near) monopoly (a'la AT&T) from the government in exchange for the on-paper adherence to various regulations, which may be too cumbersome to pass through as laws ("net-neutrality", porn-filtering, cooperation on eavesdropping, etc.). The companies will then, inevitably, outsmart the regulators making the rest of us (far) worse off.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather just switch ISPs, than file complaints with government bureaucrats... Free market is usually the best regulator.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.