Slashdot Mirror


Canadian ISPs Speak Out Against Net Neutrality

Ars Technica reports on a proceeding being held by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission regarding net neutrality. They requested comments from the public as part of the debate, and several Canadian ISPs took the opportunity to explain why they think it's a bad idea. Quoting: "One of the more interesting responses came from an ISP called Videotron, which told the CRTC that controlling access to content ... 'could be beneficial not only to users of Internet services but to society in general.' As examples of such benefits, Videotron mentioned the control of spam, viruses, and child pornography. It went on to suggest that graduated response rules — kicking users off the 'Net after several accusations of copyright infringement — could also be included as a benefit to society in general. ... Rogers, one of Canada's big ISPs, also chimed in and explained that new regulations might limit its ability to throttle P2P uploads, which it does at the moment. 'P2P file sharing is designed to cause network congestion,' says the company. 'It contributes significantly to latency, thereby making the network unreliable for certain users at periods of such congestion.'"

23 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Stop overselling by broken_chaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't provide what you're being paid for, stop overselling the network you have.

    1. Re:Stop overselling by iSeal · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think this illustrates how few people understand how consumer broadband works.

      The reason consumer broadband is so cheap is that bandwidth is actually shared in pools of people. It's not like having a business-class connection where you have dedicated lines, a guaranteed speed (ie. 1.5MB/s per person), and the price to reflect it.

      Consumer broadband is different. Allocate 50MBs to a pool of people, and cap each person at 5MB/s. With casual net usage, that's not a problem. Games are low in bandwidth, and web surfing produces sporadic spikes of intense bandwidth usage. At 50MB/s, you could get maybe a thousand simultaneous users. They all download their pages at blazing speeds, and have low latency on their games. Because its shared, the price is cheap too.

      But if you introduce something like bittorrent into that consumer broadband usage model, then we have a problem. Because now, it only takes a relative few to clog up the entire allocated 50MB/s.

      ISPs like Rogers who used pool resources are now faced with a dilemma: how you maintain speeds for everyone, while keeping the price low - for everyone? They've chosen to throttle connections. Is it right? Perhaps not.

      But it's important to understand that the issue is just not as black and white as some would like it to be. I'm for net neutrality, in terms of being blind to who the end IP is. I don't want Site X to be slower because they didn't pay Rogers a premium. However, I'm not against traffic shaping high-bandwidth services. If you want the bandwidth so bad, then pay for a line with guaranteed speeds.

    2. Re:Stop overselling by Brickwall · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'd like to reply to a bunch of comments above: First, I use Robbers high speed. I don't use torrents to download movies or music I should pay for (pr0n is different, but there's so much free stuff out there..); I like to think I'm honest. Once or twice a month I might find bandwidth restricted, but most of the time - and I'm online 12-16 hours a day - my response is very fast, and the downloads I request rarely take more than one minute in real time.

      Do I have a problem with other people using p2p? Not at all. But, if you want to use a shared resource and expect to hog the entire bandwidth available, I have no sympathy. Either 1) get used to lower bandwidth, or 2) pay the extra to get dedicated bandwidth. TANSTAAFL.

      But none of these issues are related to net neutrality. I don't think anyone should have to pay a premium to ensure that their sites are given priority - or even equal - access to bandwidth. I'm disappointed that so many Canadian ISP's are willing to throw in the towel; it makes me sad.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
  2. "Designed"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'P2P file sharing is designed to cause network congestion,' says the company.

    Yes! Clearly, when designing a P2P protocol, my first concern was to make absolutely sure that your network would be congested, because I hate the Internet!

    This isn't all about you, ISPs. It's about us, and what we want to use our bandwidth for. And yes, P2P filesharing does have design goals other than clogging your tubes.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:"Designed"? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      p2p was designed to cause congestion in the same way that cars were designed to cause traffic jams.

    2. Re:"Designed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      HTTP wasn't designed to congest networks, but as it is unicast, if lots of people "tune in" online to watch the latest Presidential address, the networks get congested. Arguably, P2P would be better in this, and multicast streaming would be even better.
      Should ISPs prioritize P2P above HTTP, and multicast above P2P?

    3. Re:"Designed"? by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yes, P2P filesharing does have design goals other than clogging your tubes.

      The way I see it, the portion I paid for is my tubes. And unlimited means unlimited.

  3. People with handcuffs and shackles on by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    are hard pressed to hurt others. Indeed, we are quite safe when everyone is controlled and limited. Sadly, Videotron is playing the typical "think of the children" and "trade freedom for safety" thing because they think it'll get them in good with the media companies.

    Or something retarded like that.

    1. Re:People with handcuffs and shackles on by Shark · · Score: 5, Informative

      Videotron (Quebecor) pretty much *is* the media company. A branch of it anyway.

      And I saw people wonder why the local media wasn't picking up on this around here. Quebecor owns half the press and TV channels.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
  4. "Benefit to society." by TheFlyingBuddha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would prefer they elaborate on this generic "benefit for society" that comes from protecting the copyright interests of corporate entities. I don't really see how this particular item helps all of us lead better lives.

    1. Re:"Benefit to society." by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you know that nothing had been invented before patents? And nothing was written before copyrights?

  5. accusations by JustKidding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "kicking users off the 'Net after several accusations of copyright infringement"

    notice how he used the word "accusations" instead of anything that would imply the necessity of evidence.

  6. Re:want the old slashdot back? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But that's just the genertional gap just being shown.

    Back in the old days, /. was a purists tech site. They had some funnies as in (groan), but mostly was discussion and Linux advocation. Then, we really didnt care about the legality of whatever. As long as it was technologically feasible and interesting, it was worth doing.

    Fast forward past the Napster years....

    We now live in a world of "Papers Please", and surveillance tech. Most of our cool ideas have been deemed "illegal", as they were gray first. The 2600 judgment said that just linking was violating. Now, most of our efforts are to try to turn this tide around, telling politicians how stupid their policies really are.

    We now talk about network neutrality, but that's solved by encryption. Next they block encryption and we set it up to look like html over http "share servers". And then we have the 750-35000 dollar fine if we are found trading. Look at NewYorkCountryLawyer for those situations. He's a techie geek lawyer who fights on our side.

    --
  7. o, canada... by emart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i thought you were strong and free? why do i feel so disappointed?

    --
    "they didn't know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
  8. That's Videotron for you by Cow_woC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone who's dealt with Videotron before recognizes their double speak. They have a long history of draconian practices such as capping the bandwidth of their users at a very low level, preventing the use of *any* sort of server, charging $50 per static IP you request, etc.

    They go out of their way to rip off their users and then try to impose the same draconian measures on their competitors in order to discourage users from jumping ship. The same applies to Bell.

    The Canadian government should outlaw any one company from owning *both* the infrastructure and service components of media services. Right now Bell is abusing their monopoly on phone lines to lock competitors out of the ADSL space and Videotron monopolizes its control of cable lines to lock competitors out of the TV space.

  9. Net neutrality by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Net neutrality is like highway neutrality.

    Would you be upset if companies were allowed to contruct paying-subscriber-only lanes on the freeway? Or if they were able to just throw out traffic cones wherever they wanted?

    It really is that fucking simple. There is no benefit from any deviation from net neutrality.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:Net neutrality by caseih · · Score: 4, Informative

      No it's not. Bad analogy. Actually horrid analogy. As bad as the famous ted stevens dump trucks and tubes idea.

      Roads are considered "public" because they are paid for with public funds. If a company somehow was able to own 100 miles of land and build a nice freeway on it with their own money, they certainly could charge whatever they want to whoever they want. And subscriber-only lanes would be totally legal.

      Certainly some network pipes are bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars. But a lot of trunks are real investments on the part of the telcos. Granted there is a certain amount of government-granted monopoly status going on here... there are only so many right of ways, etc.

      The real issue involves dishonest double-dipping. ISPs and telcos want to charge you twice for everything you do, and charge companies like Google twice as well. They also want the right to sell you what purports to be connection you can transmit any kind of data on, and then turn around and intentionally slow certain kinds of traffic, or charge you more for certain kinds of data. Kickbacks from companies willing to pay to get their content delivered faster are then given an artificial advantage over others. This behavior might be barely legal, depending on racketeering laws, but certainly isn't ethical.

  10. Videotron as everything to loose to P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Videotron is not not just an ISP.

    They are also a cable company, phone company
    and they own stores where you can rent dvds
    and games.

    The are own by Quebecor, which is a publishing
    company, which also owns TVA, a tv station,
    and stores selling video games, and the list goes on and on.

    Basically, they tend to be a monopole which
    wants to make you pay for everything you watch and
    play.

    They are certainly not neutral about net neutrality.

  11. and that makes Videotron a ..... by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fantastic shining example of why we NEED network neutrality; to stop companies like this from having a monopoly on all entertainment and in doing so drag your business and information needs into the same quagmire of unregulated information highway robbery.

    Time for an information age robin hood?

    This sort of greed is disgusting.

  12. Net Neutrality vs QoS by Darkon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Rogers, one of Canada's big ISPs, also chimed in and explained that new regulations might limit its ability to throttle P2P uploads

    No. Net Neutrality ensures no discrimination based on traffic source or destination. This has nothing to do with Quality of Service filtering, which is discrimination based on traffic type. They can still throttle my P2P all they like, they just can't throttle my access to YouTube because YouTube didn't pony up some "high traffic site fee".

  13. Canadian Net Neutrality Coalition by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.saveournet.ca/ for supporting net neutrality in Canada.

  14. Tubes... by Tuoqui · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe we should make the tubes owned by a public company that leases lines to ISPs rather than letting Rogers, Bell and all these other companies do it.

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  15. Well that made my decision easy by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was about to cancel my subscription to Teksavvy (a fantastic ISP) to go with Videotron because, being cable, it's slightly faster.

    Now that I'm aware of Videotron's stance on Net Neutrality (something Teksavvy is fight vehemently for), I'm canning the idea. Videotron will not be receiving my money.

    Thank you, slashdot.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC