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."

Comments

the state of things

[dsanfte]

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!

Re:the state of things

[iCEBaLM]

If the service was sold to your neighbour as being unlimited, then he should be able to use it in any way he wishes. It's not your neighbours fault for using the service he paid for, it's the ISPs fault for not providing you the service you paid for. If they are overselling lines, which they are because every ISP does it, then ISPs are gambling on the fact that 90% of their subscribers only browse a few pages and use email.

Re:the state of things

[TheRaven64]

You clearly have no understanding of what net neutrality entails, so please stop talking about it.

First of all, the concept of 'shared resources' between you and your neighbour is a matter for your SLA with your ISP. If they sell you a certain amount of access and they can't provide it because of your neighbour then this is between you and them, and you should probably be advocating that they start charging for total data transferred as many ISPs do. Then, if your neighbour wants to pay a lot more than you, then he can use a lot more of your 'shared resource'. Mind you, if you are living somewhere where one person can make such a noticeable difference then perhaps you should be more interested in network upgrades, something non-neutral network advocates are interested in avoiding.

Secondly, QoS is nothing to do with network neutrality. Every pipe makes bandwidth versus latency trades. If your neighbour is using a lot of bandwidth then his latency will go up because your packets will have a higher priority. This is nothing to do with network neutrality either.

Network neutrality is about preventing traffic shaping based on endpoints. Preventing your ISP from prioritising your traffic if it goes to one online music store or news outlet and silently dropping packets and increasing latency if it goes to another one. If you're really happy that your ISP could enter into a partnership with MSN to make their search page load in a second and Google's load in 10 seconds or time out, then that's fine, and you are entitled to your opinion. If you're not, then please shut up about how great a non-neutral network is.

Ineffective.

[sedmonds]

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3524372&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24#1

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:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as limiting or restricting the right of a network operator to

(a) manage the flow of network traffic in a reasonable manner in order to relieve congestion;

Re:Paper Tiger

[KGIII]

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place.

[Citation Needed] Sorry but I'm wanting you to actually give some examples. I can cite all sorts of things that the free market has done at great profit that have not been of benefit to the people until the government got involved such as, oh, construction, coal mining, food preparation, etc...

Re:Paper Tiger

[Pseudonym]

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place.

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.

Re:Paper Tiger

[NickFortune]

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place.

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.

Of course this piece of regulation will be different than all the others.

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.