Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Liberal Party of Canada Comes Out In Support of Net Neutrality

Posted by Soulskill on from the free-tubes-eh dept.

bryxal writes "The Liberal Party of Canada, currently leading in most polls, has announced yesterday that it supports Net Neutrality, saying, 'Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour, nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications. We must protect the openness and freedom of the internet, and maintain competition to spur innovation, improve service levels and reduce costs to users.'"

103 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Now... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now, if Ignatieff (leader of the Liberal party) would just get his ass in gear and get a new election called so that Harper can be shown the door we could get that network neutrality into action....

    1. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now, if Ignatieff could take back the 34 years he spent outside Canada, his self-admitted snobbery, and his comment that he was American, he might stand a chance.

      What's with the Liberals anyway? For their last leader, Stephane Dion, they looked around and said "who can we find with less of a personality than Harper?"

      Screw it, I'm in Alberta. It doesn't matter whom I vote for, the Conservatives will win here.

    2. Re:Now... by d_jedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We do not need another election - 4 in 5 years? Give me a break!

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    3. Re:Now... by friesandgravy · · Score: 2, Informative

      commenting to undo moderation error.

    4. Re:Now... by danking · · Score: 1

      No way man... if the Liberals call a new election less than a year after the last the general public will be mighty pissed. They will probably bide their time. Anyways, I think a lot of the time the opposition party is in the business of saying anything that will gain more votes for their side. Whenever they gain more power we will see if their words turn to actions.

    5. Re:Now... by Locklin · · Score: 3, Informative

      If he gets a minority, the NDP also supports net neutrality.

      http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-introduce-net-neutrality-bill

      For anyone interested in Canadian net neutrality, http://neutrality.ca/ has regular updates.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    6. Re:Now... by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      You know, I even heard that that bastard John A. MacDonald wasn't born in Canada either. In fact, from his birth in 1815 until 1867, he didn't even live in Canada, but in some British colony somewhere!

    7. Re:Now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Now, if Ignatieff could take back the 34 years he spent outside Canada, his self-admitted snobbery, and his comment that he was American, he might stand a chance."

      If living in Britain has taught me anything, it's that you shouldn't be afraid of foreigners and politics, even if he clearly isn't actually a foreigner despite his comments.

      I say this because Europe has done a better job of governing Britain than Britain's own government has this last few years. We've had to depend on the European Court of Human rights to overturn some decisions passed by our ruling government that the vast majority of the population was against because the government wouldn't do it for us.

      The more I see of the world, the more I realise patriotism is more often than not overrated. Judge people on their ability to actually do the job, not where they come from - if they're no good at the job then fair enough, but if they're damn good at their job, who cares about the rest of it?

      FWIW I'll almost certainly be moving to Canada within a few years as my long time girlfriend is Canadian. You have a lovely country and I promise I wont try and stand for PM ;)

    8. Re:Now... by multisync · · Score: 1

      My concern with the Liberals is they tend to be all over the place on these types of issues. Geist pointed out in his article on the Conservatives' IP21C legislative package that it was very similar to a piece of proposed Liberal legislation that died on the order paper in 2005.

      They are desperate to get back in power, and will mimic the NDP and/or Conservatives on any given policy as need suites them if they think it will get them another vote.

      The encouraging thing about this is that it brings it more in to the public consciousness. It's one thing for geeks and the younger generation to go on Facebook demanding privacy, net neutrality and balanced copyright legislation; if my parents' generation (who have a lot of time on their hands these days) started blogging, writing letters and calling in to all those conservative talk shows they like to listen to demanding the government protect the Internet and mind their own damn business when it comes to everything else, it could spell trouble for a party that gets out of step with that.

      The second group tends to vote, where the first tends not to.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    9. Re:Now... by influenza · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with more elections? I say the more the better and I can't really understand people who complain about having to vote too often.

      Seriously, it's better for us to get more opportunities to elect our government... right? Better than being stuck with a bad government for four or five years and not being able to do anything about it.

      And for those that don't know, voting in Canada is very easy. You can register at the polls (if you're not already registered) and there's only one ballot with a single question (you choose one candidate, there are no propositions). It takes 5 minutes if there's no line.

    10. Re:Now... by multisync · · Score: 1

      The told Alberta that they wouldn't implement the National Energy Program (NEP) and double tax petroleum. Yet in 1980 that's exactly what they did.

      Hmmm ... interesting.

      Anything they did back in the 60s, or perhaps the 1930s that we should be concerned about?

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    11. Re:Now... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Any Canadian referred to as American is usually damned quick with a correction. You'll notice basically no one refers to themselves by what *continent* they live on. Only when you're talking about the Other do you generalize in such a fashion. "He is European. She is Asian. They are African." By labelling himself American, he's just about shot his chances of being PM in the face, because it's a constant worry about how much US-ian Ass our government kisses, and most Canadians would rather not be "the 51st state."

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    12. Re:Now... by thefringthing · · Score: 1

      They may be a slight hassle, but it's the only way to get rid of Harper (coalition hijinx not withstanding).

    13. Re:Now... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Talk to anyone 30 years of age, or so, and the NEP is still a fucking HUGE deal in Alberta. It's the #1 reason that people here refuse to vote Liberal. They remember how they were viciously fucked over. Alberta's economy now is only a fluke, because the NEP damned near killed the province. Dismissing something that's recent enough to be in the memories of a significant amount of the voting public is the height of denial. The Liberals have done absolutely nothing to distance themselves from that incident, and the PM who instituted it is often considered "one of the greatest Liberal PMs ever."

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    14. Re:Now... by dual+eyes · · Score: 1

      I do not understand those who are upset when they get a say on how they are governed. I would GLADLY go to the polls every month to vote if I could. That would make governments truly accountable. If you don't want to vote, then don't - no one is forcing you to vote. Just because you may be happy having your life controlled by others doesn't mean the rest of us want to waive our right to choose our rulers. If people really think that taking 10 minutes off their life to cast a vote 4 times in 5 years is too demanding, then God help us all.

    15. Re:Now... by TheCycoONE · · Score: 1

      Except for the massive costs involved in running an election. I think most tax payers would rather their money was spent on health care, education, road maintenance, or lower taxes than elections.

    16. Re:Now... by d_jedi · · Score: 1

      It's not so much voting, per se.. it's that the business of actually governing the country shuts down during an election (all existing legislation dies on the order paper).. and then there's the massive cost ($300M I've heard cited) to boot.

      We need to allow the elected government to have a chance to actually implement some of the things they've promised to do. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with how Harper has governed so far, but personally, I'm not convinced we have a better alternative (the coalition, headed by that buffoon Dion, certainly would NOT be better..)

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    17. Re:Now... by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

      ... and the douchebag posturing that comes several months before and a couple after an election. If we were always pre and post-election, NOTHING would get done, because everyone's more worried about lying about promises to get re-elected.

      And when I say nothing, I mean even less gets done than when we grumble about it normally.

    18. Re:Now... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Actually, he's probably better considered "the greatest Canadian PM ever". I mean, he ranked third in The Greatest Canadian!

      Also, in an Angus-Reid poll in late May, 39% of Canadians say Trudeau was the best PM in recent history, followed by Harper with 11% and Chretien with 9%.

      Oddly, the opposite is not also true: 22% picked Harper as worst PM, followed by Mulroney with 19%, Chretien with 12%, and Trudeau with 10%.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    19. Re:Now... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Right, because net neutrality should be the overriding issue in any election *rolls eyes*

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    20. Re:Now... by Prune · · Score: 1

      I hardly think it appropriate voting based on a single issue, let alone an issue that pales in importance to others such as managing the economy, quashing the HRCs, etc.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  2. You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by moon3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Skype is actively blocked here in EU by many ISPs, because some big telcos and their ISP branches decided that Skype is eating too much into their pie. Skype is notorious low bandwidth app so claims of bandwidth concerns etc. are ill-founded. Canada is showing some sense and those EU drones in Brussels should do something, a constitutional amendment perhaps ?

    1. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by Meumeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Skype is actively blocked here in EU by many ISPs, because some big telcos and their ISP branches decided that Skype is eating too much into their pie. Skype is notorious low bandwidth app so claims of bandwidth concerns etc. are ill-founded. Canada is showing some sense and those EU drones in Brussels should do something, a constitutional amendment perhaps ?

      To have a constitutional amendment, we would first need to have a constitution...

    2. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by moon3 · · Score: 1

      We have a constitutions per state, but you are right, EU as a whole doesn't have one, because Irish and Czechs are still effectively blocking it.

    3. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Skype in Canada doesn't provide you with a phone number (i.e.what they used to call 'Skype In'). We have the highest cell phone rates in the world or very close to it (some cell companies want you to pay long distance rates even if you are the one receiving the call!!!... granted some have stopped this practice but still...). The land area is so big, and the population density so small, you will find yourself talking long distance at least several times a week, just for personal business. In other words, long distance is a 'need to have' not a 'nice to have'. Oh and I forgot to mention, the cost for a plan that automatically includes long distance for the whole country is prohibitively high for a personal phone... i.e. generally, only those who have their companies pay for it will have that plan. The bottom line is that if there is one country in the world that is prime picking for a company that can offer extremely low long distance rates, it is Canada. But you NEED to have a telephone number so that people without Skype can dial you up. Too bad Skype is missing out. Too bad for Canadians. :(

      I have voted for the conservative for at least the last ten years. The liberals who used to be the middle of the road party have drifted much too far to the left. When they used to sit in the centre, sometimes they even drifted to the right a little bit, especially in terms of finances. They were the ones who balanced the budget federally, and started paying it down in a big way (it's why Canada is the country best off of the G8 and whose banks are still making profits). However they have gone so far left it is scary.

      I'm hoping the Ignatieff (Canada's federal Liberal Party leader) moves the party back to the middle. If so, coupled with net neutrality, I'll definitely move back to the liberal camp. At least until it is passes parliament and gets Royal Assent. Heck, they only need to move a little towards centre. Once it is passed, I can always vote conservative again. :)

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    4. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by jopsen · · Score: 1

      ... those EU drones in Brussels should do something, a constitutional amendment perhaps ?

      I hope not... Then we'd have to make a constitutional amendment for every type of communication network that is invented in the future...
      - But I'd like to see some regulations too...

    5. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by moon3 · · Score: 1

      NN is meant for the Internet information network, there is a clear distinction between this kind of open network and narrow interest networks like XBox-Live or Skype with their own internal rules.

    6. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by SigILL · · Score: 1

      Skype is actively blocked here in EU by many ISPs, because some big telcos and their ISP branches decided that Skype is eating too much into their pie.

      Could you give an example? It's most certainly not the case here in the Netherlands, and there would be a huge outcry if this were so. The European Commission is pretty strict on anti-competitive measures, especially those by the former state monopolies.

      --
      Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
    7. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by moon3 · · Score: 1

      T-Mobile in Germany for example, they are blocking Skype and laugh at NN.

    8. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Skype does eat your bandwidth even when you are not talking over it, it is a well known fact. Your computer might be used by Skype as a gateway for other people talking together which could not reach each other otherwise. I have a 1GB a month cap on an EVDO wireless connection and I would just about eat it all just by letting skype always on 24/7, even without ever talking to anybody.

      Knowing this, I could understand the total cost of Skype might be non-negligible for ISPs.

      Of course, it's kind of net non-neutrality, like idling torrents. I guess every customer should pay with regards to the share of bandwidth he uses, same as when you go buy some beer. It would solve a lot of problems ;-)))

      Skype wouldn't see so free anymore, their business model is technically based on "borrowing" bandwidth from its user. Most users wouldn't keep skype on if they had to pay for the bandwidth it uses, even if you never actually talk to anybody.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    9. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by Wowsers · · Score: 1

      We have a constitutions per state, but you are right, EU as a whole doesn't have one, because Irish and Czechs are still effectively blocking it.

      And thank goodness they are blocking the Lisbon CONstitution / Treaty, they are the only countries stopping the EU becoming the EUSSR in every way except name, Brussels becoming the new Moscow. Once enacted, that is it for European countries, a treaty that can amend itself - no further votes from the pesky electorate! It's bad enough the REAL decision makes in the EU are completely unelected by the people, and that national governments are just rubber stamps for Brussles edicts and laws. Now we'll have dictators that will never have to ask the people about anything.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    10. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Just go your own way to save: http://www.asterisk.org/

      I installed asterisk and opened accounts with several business grade VOIP provider. You can reach me through an 1-800 number, I have local phone numbers in 3 major canadian cities and it costs me in average 30$ a month in total for my phone bills. I manage to almost eliminate that cost by reselling services to a few people.

      The call quality is "business grade" not "Skype grade" ;-)))

      Skype survives because it "borrows" bandwidth from its users, without this fact, Skype has no business model, you would have to pay for every call you make, they currently offload costs to others so they don't have to pay for it, see my other post:

      http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1275661&cid=28400331

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    11. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by moon3 · · Score: 1

      I still think it is a NN violation..

    12. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Skype is notorious low bandwidth app so claims of bandwidth concerns etc. are ill-founded

      No it isn't. Skype, if it decides that you have a non-NAT'd connection, or is able to find some forwarded ports, can produce enough traffic to saturate a consumer connection (or, could a couple of years ago when I had a housemate running Skype).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Why do you want a proprietary system? There are a lot of SIP providers in Canada (a quick Google turned up a site which lists around 200 of them). My provider (I think it's based in Germany, but operates in the UK and Germany) charges 1.5p/minute for calls to Canadian land lines or mobiles, but doesn't provide a Canadian phone number (you'd need a Canadian SIP gateway for that). And, as an added bonus, because it uses an open standard there are a large number of clients, including softphones and hardware devices. My (cheap) Nokia phone has WiFi and a SIP client, so I can use the same device for making SIP calls as I do for mobile calls; if I'm near an access point, it uses SIP, otherwise it uses the mobile network.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by Locklin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Skype isn't the answer to low-cost phone. Standards complient (SIP) Voip is. Acanac has unlimited calling in North America and a Canadian number for 10 bucks a month. Unlimitel has an a-la-carte model for $2.50 a month.

      Standards compliant SIP means you can use a cheap voip ATA and a regular phone instead of a computer.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    15. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Neither Acanac or Unlimitel offer a phone number outside of certain large cities. For example, there is no phone number offered in Saskatchewan at all.

      Do you really want to make everyone who calls you dial a long distance number in a different city or province (or pay 5c per minute for incoming 1-800 calls) to contact you?

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    16. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I don't care if it is proprietary, but it has to be 'for profit'. Otherwise there is not enough motivation for them to stay in business (provide service) in the long run. I don't count 'having good intentions' and such as good enough motivation. Not being able to eat, or pay the rent if your business goes under does count as good motivation. It also has to promise a certain level of security. I know we can't get around nosy governments now, but I do want assurance that everyone else will not be able to listen in (yes I know nothing is absolute, so anyone wanting to be anal can stop right now).

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    17. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      All of the SIP providers that operate SIP to POTS gateways are for-profit (that I know of - and I'm sure I'd have heard if there were some that weren't). They make their money by charging for their service. If you want to talk to someone else with a configured SIP client you can talk directly, if you want to talk to someone on a phone then you connect to their bridge and they route the call. If you set up something like Asterisk then you can have it automatically select a different gateway for different numbers or at different times to find the cheapest, but if you don't call many countries then you may just use a single provider (I do).

      If you use Skype, you are locked in to Skype. You can't use their software with any other provider, you can't talk to Skype users with any other software. If they decide to increase their prices, it's difficult to go elsewhere. If you use a provider that operates with an open standard then you can easily switch to another and have choice over the client software (and hardware) you use.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:You don't care until your Skype is blocked.. by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Neither Acanac or Unlimitel offer a phone number outside of certain large cities.

      Neither does Skype. The benefit of standards compliance is that you can buy a generic voip ata router and connect it to whatever supplier offers local numbers or the cheapest service.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  3. Re:wow by fyoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Canada just keeps getting more and more impressive. Again, ahead of the curve on social justice. They put the US to shame.

    Not really. This is the opposition the article is about. And its not even a very good opposition. Harper, the PM, got passed minimum sentences for marijuana possession with the Liberals help. His mandate is to make Canada more like the US, and bit by bit perhaps he'll succeed. The left is split and he only needs about a third of the popular vote to form the gov't. If Canadians don't learn to vote strategically, he'll get in again and again.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
  4. Information about the "Liberal" in Liberal Party by reporter · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you want more information about the Liberal Party of Canada, just visit their web site.

    The "liberal" in "Liberal Party" has the traditional American meaning and is not used in the European sense. In Europe, a "liberal" is one who favors market liberalization: lower taxes, less regulation, and longer work hours. For example, France's Nicolas Sarkozy was accused of being a "liberal" when he ran in the presidential election.

  5. Re:Information about the "Liberal" in Liberal Part by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

    Lower taxes and less regulation, sure, but you cannot call a liberal (in the traditional US sense, or libertarian today) somebody who thinks that it's a matter for the government to decide what the work hours should be in private businesses.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  6. Legitimate Software Applications by ModernGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder who gets to decide what a "Legitimate Software Application" is?

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
    1. Re:Legitimate Software Applications by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder who gets to decide what a "Legitimate Software Application" is?

      I was going to post the same thing. Sorry my mod points are on cooldown. Well said.

      Corollary questions: Who decides how to distinguish between the data stream of a legitimate app and the data stream of an illegitimate app? What if they use an identical data stream? What level of false positive blocking is OK? False negative passing?

      Corporate networks can filter at the protocol and packet level because they are independent networks whose need for security exceeds their need for liberty. Society-level networks require the opposite priority order to maximize societal profit. Tell your politician.

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  7. Re:wow by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am glad that you brought up mandatory minimums. It would appear as though they have the summer to mull over the bill.

    Alberta's law against sane education and basically the whole state of affairs up here is certainly a cause for election.

    After the liberal vote on mandatory minimums it would appear that the only party supporting legalization is the NDP.

    However, unfortunately step 1 is getting the conservatives out of power.

  8. Re:Third post. by fractoid · · Score: 1

    Dammit. You can plan for failure, but you can't plan for success. :P

    I actually hoped it was the Liberal party of Australia that'd come out with it, although our Liberal party is (so I'm told) kinda more like the Conservatives in Canada. We're just in the process of (hopefully) having Conroy's Great Firewall of Fail thrown out as completely impracticable, so it'd be great to have a local party that recognizes that messing with the internets is bad.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  9. The liberals are the opposition party. by yourassOA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everything they say and do is opposite the conservatives. They don't care, they are just doing their jobs.

    1. Re:The liberals are the opposition party. by chdig · · Score: 1

      To quote the Liberal's press release on their position:
      "Net Neutrality refers to the principle that internet traffic management should not selectively target certain websites, users or legitimate internet applications."

      I'll put $50 on the table to wager that Bell's 30KBps limit on bittorrent downloading will miraculously escape any "Net Neutrality" legislation the Liberals table when they get into power.

      Any takers?

      --
      What's really at risk? The definition of net neutrality itself.

  10. For those of you... by samexner · · Score: 3, Funny

    For those of you thinking of moving to canada, remember this:
    If you die in Canada, you die in real life! http://xkcd.com/180/

    1. Re:For those of you... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I think you should look at this, it's very relevant to the discussion at hand.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:For those of you... by nausea_malvarma · · Score: 1

      No doubt this proves that some of our most beloved slashdot users are really bots programmed to scan comments for keywords, and post xkcd links that it thinks are relevant. Kind of like google adsense, but for webcomics.

    3. Re:For those of you... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it's already been used to download porn. Better luck next time!

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  11. Not necessarily what Canadians are hoping for. by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bell Canada is in hot water with their wholesale ISP customers because they are throttling the bandwidth from the cabinets/COs upstream. However, they are throttling both their own retail subscribers _and_ these ISP resellers. Personally, I see this as a commercial issue between the ISPs and Bell. The ISPs should have SLAs that document precisely how much bandwidth they are allowed to peak at.

    However, ISPs, instead of negotiating, running their own wire, or buying their own DSLAMs have gone lobbying. They tried the regulator, who told them to get lost. They've managed to convince a lot of customers that Bell is being anti-competitive and against "Net Neutrality" by throttling. Remember, Bell applies the same shaping to their own customers.

    So, everyone is hoping that this means that the Liberals are against this throttling. However, I can't see how it would have any bearing on that, since all subscribers are throttled the same.

    Net Neutrality is a complex issue - where are you allowed to throttle, how are you allowed to throttle, are you allowed QoS, preferential feeds over a common connection, preferential feeds over independent connections. What's the difference between a VPN on one wire and a separate wire? Are you allowed to host local mirrors of high traffic sites? Are you allowed to charge fees for that hosting? If you're a VoIP provider as well as the ISP, are you allowed to provide preferential services? If you offer DTV, how about then? What makes a cable TV provider able to give preferential treatment to cable TV channels, but an ISP can't do it for Internet TV?

    This was purely a publicity stunt without any real substance behind it. Particularly since Canada has a minority government and could be voted down at any point in time. Heck, they managed to get mentioned on slashdot - talk about hitting the target market!

    I saw the same thing in New Zealand. During the election, the opposition minister was quoting as saying that the copyright legislation was stupid, and that he didn't know why he voted for it. As soon as they got in, NZ had S92A, three strikes and you're disconnected without appeal or evidence.

    1. Re:Not necessarily what Canadians are hoping for. by sedmonds · · Score: 3, Informative

      The ISPs should have SLAs that document precisely how much bandwidth they are allowed to peak at.

      They thought they did. They had contracted backhaul aggregation to their peering point at 151 Front St. One tariff covers the copper between end users and the CO, another tariff covers backhaul from COs to peering locations. The backhaul tariff resulted in Gig-E links from the Bell cloud. ISP looks at how much bandwidth they need, contract for that amount, plus error margin, plus expected growth. Peak requirement happens to occur during the hours Bell throttles. ISP is already tied into multi-year contracts for aggregated bandwidth that no longer matches their actual requirements.

      The ideal world where third party providers can get customer concentrations high enough to create a business case for colocating DSLAMs and having their own backhaul or peering at each CO, or even at a meaningful number of COs, simply doesn't exist. Nevermind that many, many customers either cannot get dsl from a CO (only available through remotes, which Bell doesn't have to provide access to), or CO connections are available at embarassingly low sync rates.

    2. Re:Not necessarily what Canadians are hoping for. by IPCanuck · · Score: 1

      The fact that all subscribers are throttled is a red herring. This is still anti-competitive behaviour, as it removes a significant point of competitive differentiation between Bell and the independent ISPs. Bell saw it as 'unfair' that the other ISPs could offer unthrottled connections, but they were the ones who decided to throttle their own customers! Bell was beginning to lose customers after they implemented throttling in Fall 2007, so they began throttling everyone over Easter weekend 2008. Without notice, and after they promised the other ISPs they wouldn't. We can see some of the same tactics going on now with the debate over Usage-Based Billing. Bell currently allows their subscribers 60GB/month, so naturally the tariff should allow everyone to offer only 60GB/month. This is not to mention the inherent conflict of interest Bell Canada has in this matter. Of course they don't want people to get used to getting their content over the internet - that would eat into their Bell TV (satellite) subscriber base, not to mention their content holdings (CTV). There's only one solution here - structural separation of Bell Canada.

    3. Re:Not necessarily what Canadians are hoping for. by Locklin · · Score: 1

      They are purchasing DSLAM equipment (see here for one example http://community.acanac.com/acanac/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=7023 ).

      I believe Acanac and Teksavvy are sharing the investment, but it's still a massive, long term investment.

      If Bell was only allowed to wholesale, they wouldn't be doing this. They are doing it because the small providers were taking customers by advertising un-throttled service.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    4. Re:Not necessarily what Canadians are hoping for. by yamfry · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add to that conflict of interest: Bell VoIP, Bell Video Download store, Bell's experimental fiber optic lines that they are thus far refusing to lease.

    5. Re:Not necessarily what Canadians are hoping for. by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 1

      DSLAMs are neither expensive nor long-term.

      They are US$20/port, and available in small configurations (20 ports).

      So, it costs them US$600 to buy a DSLAM, which pays for itself from _one_ subscriber rather quickly.

  12. Meaningless blather by Gerhardius · · Score: 1

    The Liberal Party is notorious for promising things in Opposition that they have no intention of following through with. Ultimately the Liberals will promise cash to the poor Provinces that will come out of the pockets of the rich Provinces, return to power and forget about Net Neutrality.

    1. Re:Meaningless blather by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same here in Australia. One new Government created a distinction between "core promises" and "non-core promises". Simple as that.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Meaningless blather by east+coast · · Score: 1

      That sounds like most parties to me. One offsetting what the other has to say just to get the support of those blindly against another party.

      The sad thing is that it hampers real progress since it's nothing more than who has what to sell this week. Party politics is a trap to keep the simpletons inline.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Meaningless blather by jbr439 · · Score: 1

      At least you get "core promises". We just get "promises" that aren't worth the paper they're written on.

  13. Re:wow by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 3, Informative

    Please. Once again, for all the creationists out there, evolution is not a religion. It is science. Science is based on observable phenomena. Religion is based on a feeling. And all this has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  14. Re:wow by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

    It's a civil matter. We only need a preponderance of evidence. That little item is missing from anybody who preaches the supernatural.

    --
    Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
  15. Re:Information about the "Liberal" in Liberal Part by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Classic liberal != libertarian.

    Besides, "liberal" isn't binary. There's a whole range of opinions that falls into that category, and most of them are not extreme (while not regulating work hours is definitely very fringe by today measures).

    And, of course, the Liberal Party of Canada - which is one of the major parties - is not extreme on any issues.

  16. Re:wow by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    And I'm the one who was modded troll? Creationists with mod points are a dangerous thing.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  17. Now I'm Back and Drunk by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 1

    You lunatics never stop.

    I submitted the CBC coverage of the bill: "Alberta passes law allowing parents to pull kids out of class. Written notice required when sex, sexual orientation, religion are covered." http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=4724247

    I submitted it under censorship because that is what it is. You are trying to censor people from the facts to further your agenda.

    If your beliefs are so rock solid then why must you always institute censorship.

    Any scientist would see the inherit problem of a person graduating from biology without understanding or belief of the fact of evolution.

    If you want to limit the future of your children you are doing a very good job of it. These theories are fact, whether in a biology curriculum or a gender study curriculum. Certainly parents are not setting their children up for post secondary education. What they are setting them for is hate, towards their parents. When they realize their god doesn't exist, and their whole life is a lie, they will have nobody to blame other than oppressive parents.

    1. Re:Now I'm Back and Drunk by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Informative

      And 150 years ago you'd be screaming about how them negros is only 3.5ths of a human and therefor should get their asses back out to the cotton fields. The nice thing about culture and evolution is MOST of us do evolve, unlike yourself.

      Guys like you that are constantly screaming about "homos" remind me of that old Bobcat bit on gay bashing "I hate you because your queer and the bible says so, aaaaand I think you kinda cute and that makes me uncomfortable SO DIE FAG!". Get over it, okay? There is homosexual behavior in birds, in various species all along the chain, and you know what? They're all still here. If you are so damned scared of letting your kid know that gays exist you're probably secretly afriad that your kid may be one and you know what? They just might be.

      I had a friend in HS whose parents were venom spewing bible thumpers, always spewing hatred about gays and non believers. I found out why a couple of years after Brian graduated when I ran into him on the street. It turns out they made his life a living hell, and the second he got accepted into college he told them he was gay and to go fuck themselves. Now they have no children and will spend their remaining years without knowing anything about their child's life. How fucking sad. of course I'm sure if that happens to you you'll just clutch your little book and pretend your child never existed. How fucking sad. I truly pity you. If Jesus could come back today and see how his message of love was turned into nothing but venomous hatred by guys like you I'm sure he'd throw the book into the fire and start over.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Now I'm Back and Drunk by yourassOA · · Score: 1

      And 150 years ago you'd be screaming about how them negros is only 3.5ths of a human
      To idea that negros were closer to monkeys is an idea that came from the evolutionists.
      If you are so damned scared of letting your kid know that gays exist
      The issue isn't gays existing the issue is them telling my kids its normal to be gay.I guess evolution is the way out for gays, its the only way they are going to be able to reproduce somehow. No one can explain to me how babies come out your butt. Gay birds don't make babies dumbass.
      Now they have no children and will spend their remaining years without knowing anything about their child's life.Well it's the end of that family tree either way. Did you ever stop to think maybe they don't hate their kid but are simply disgusted.
      And Jesus said repent and forsake your sins for the wages of sin is death.

    3. Re:Now I'm Back and Drunk by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Actually the KKK used Christian beliefs to push their agenda, but that would require knowing one's history. Yes Jesus said repent, and I can produce books just as old saying we should sacrifice a virgin to the sun god RA to get a good harvest this year. Your point? Lets be honest here: you are basing your ENTIRE life on a 3000 year old book written by goat herders, and probably think it is great that Israel can screw us over any way they want because if we don't support them a guy that has been dead 2000+ years won't get to descend from his little cloud and walk around, and you don't find that just a litte bit crazy? Not even a little?

      Sorry, but there is a good reason why most folks don't subscribe to your point of view. It is because you and your kind, as demonstrated here today, come off as spittle flinging loonies. We marginalize your type because ALL religious fundamentalists come off as dangerous loonies. See the religious loonie that killed that abortion doctor as an example. "Thous shalt not kill" doesn't apply when it is someone who doesn't believe what you believe, huh? Or what about 'Give unto Caesar what is Caesars"? I believe that Caesar "the US government" has said that abortion is legal, but that doesn't matter I guess. Guys like you would be more than happy living under a Christian Sharia law where they told you how many times to shake your dick after you pee.

      And what is the hang up with anal sex? Your wife won't let you have none? Damned shame, my GF and I quite enjoy it, and there is no risk of unwanted pregnancy. Of course the unwanted pregnancies would drop way down if the religious loonies like you would allow condoms to be given to teens. But I guess a knocked up kid is better than an educated one,huh?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Now I'm Back and Drunk by yourassOA · · Score: 2, Informative

      Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's refers to paying you taxes not killing unborn babies. And the Bible forbids following laws that contradict the Bible.
      Also Isreal has nothing to do with Jesus they killed him and the Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah. Jews worship YHWH (god) but they do not believe Jesus (Yahshua) was his son.
      The KKK was a Catholic (not christian group) and I was not refering to them.
      In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of s." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
      Comparing christians to the guy who shot the abortion doctor is like comparing evolutionists to Hitler.
      And the bible was written by scribes mostly see the goat herders were busy herding goats.

    5. Re:Now I'm Back and Drunk by yourassOA · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with condoms Catholics have a problem with condoms. Maybe you should get your facts straight.

    6. Re:Now I'm Back and Drunk by yourassOA · · Score: 1

      Yes Jesus said repent, and I can produce books just as old saying we should sacrifice a virgin to the sun god RA to get a good harvest this year. Your point?Now can you tell which is a good book and which is a bad book?

    7. Re:Now I'm Back and Drunk by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I believe that in your book God told, IIRC David, what age the girls he could rape(take unto as wives and slaves) could be. I can't remember now if it was 9 or 11. This was of course after he slaughtered every last male in the entire town with God's blessing. So the question is can YOU tell which is that "bad" book? Because from where I'm sitting they were both written by some evil motherfuckers.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:Now I'm Back and Drunk by yourassOA · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of that could you please tell me where in the bible it says that? Also please remember there are many different versions and parts many of which were not in the original bible and added in later.

  18. Re:wow by scout1011 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you should become a God Warrior.

  19. Re:evolution is not a religion. It is science. by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 1

    Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons

    Source: Dictionary.com

    Evolution is scientific fact. Absolutely nothing in religion can be stated as fact as it is not adaptive but absolute. Your idea of reality is obsolete my friend.

    You are free to exist in whatever reality you choose, but once it affects me, or my children, I will intervene.

  20. Is BitTorrent a "legitimate software application"? by d_jedi · · Score: 1

    Aye, there's the rub.

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  21. Re:wow by scout1011 · · Score: 1

    That's not how evolution works I'm afraid! Perhaps a bit of reading into the basics of Biology will help you understand! :)

  22. Re:evolution is not a religion. It is science. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Well, if you really are a true believer - God. Now of course if you are saying your god is somewhat feebly minded and is incapable of creating or even understanding evolution, well you blasphemer you. Now if you are so tied to observing and, all you beliefs and understanding is based upon a single book, then perhaps you can show every one the original. Hell, if it is so important you'd think your supreme being of the universe you manage to save at least one original copy or is just that you want to hang you hat on the version that has been translated, interpreted and edited to suit various political leaders and their personal quest to ensure that peasants did not behave as greedily and selfishly as the leaders else the leaders would never life long enough to cash in, much the same as the multi millionaire religious pundits of today.

    Of course the god in the case of net neutrality, is the internet itself and it's ability to shift and form social consciousness, especially when it comes to hot button issues, well at least to computer geeks, of broadband and open access networks. So the conservative parties who where only ever really interested in conserving the profits of existing telcos and cable tv networks are now forced to at least appear to be up to date and current else fall foul of the younger more net active electorate who will ruthlessly meme them into non-existence. Of course to put their mouth where our money is, the will first have to put up legislation to protect net neutrality and provide universal broadband before anyone will be stupid enough to believe anything the 'incumbent telco lovers' have to say on this issue.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  23. Re:Is BitTorrent a "legitimate software applicatio by Inschato · · Score: 1

    The guys who created it certainly seem to think so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent,_Inc.

  24. Re:Is BitTorrent a "legitimate software applicatio by Klistvud · · Score: 1

    Is a car a "legitimate hardware appliance"? It CAN be used to kill people, you know... Not to mention airplanes...

    --
    Intellectual Property: an immaterial non-entity, most fiercely contended by those with no proper intellect to speak of.
  25. Re:wow by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Nah. Our current PM, Stephen Harper, is a US-loving tool, a total sycophant to the Bushies and a kiss-ass to the upper-class.

    The Liberals are currently the opposition, and their last few years have unbelievably weak. The previous leader Stephan Dion had no balls, and embarrassed himself every time he opened his mouth, couldn't win a debate against a Lisa bot. Their current leader has balls, but he comes off as a hypocrite and is constantly ridiculed by trash media over his daily contradictory statements. He's so busy negating the conservatives' platform that he often steamrolls over his own.

    Politics is, by definition, dominated by idiots, but this is the first time I can truly say every single party is moronic beyond belief. Nobody's even trying to make sense, it doesn't matter who gets elected, they each have a laundry list of lopsided legislation to shove down our throats, and that itself is a very un-Canadian thing to do. This place is slowly turning into the illegitimate lovechild of the US and UK, a little more each day.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  26. Re:evolution is not a religion. It is science. by yourassOA · · Score: 1

    Hell, if it is so important you'd think your supreme being of the universe you manage to save at least one original copy
    That is like saying evolution should have left us some pictures. Oh wait it did and not one fossil shows a missing link for any species.

  27. Re:Third post. by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

    so it'd be great to have a local party that recognizes that messing with the internets is bad.

    Actually, net neutrality legislation is messing with the internet. It's just that this is good messing for a change... probably.

  28. NetNeutrality=good; the legislation=not so much by JohnBlueMO · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Having had my nose pushed into actual regulatory politics over the last seven years, I'd like to add a cautionary note.

    Don't be surprised that the first truly large forms of Internet censorship on a large scale occur because of net neutrality legislation. Ironic.

    Right now, the government is not responsible for Internet content to any real extent. A net neutrality law essentially says 'Government, you make things right about that content stuff'. At first, this will be a good thing. "No censorship" it will say. But then, the politics show their true form. Someone will say, "you can't censor child porn because of net neutrality laws". The conservatives will push through an exception that forces censorship of child porn. Think of the children. Someone will say, "you can't censor pro-tobacco messages to children because of net neutrality laws". The liberals will push through an exception to censor tobacco messages. Think of the children. Then the next thing. Then the next. The government will, over time, take it to levels that today's QOS policy for VOIP look like innocent play.

    Sorry to be pessimistic, but it opens a Pandora's box. Governments love laws. Lobbyists love laws. So, the question I ask myself is: is the net neutrality problem today better or worse than the net neutrality problem we would get with a law? Hard to predict. I suspect that things are not bad enough yet to make a law a good idea.

  29. Yay libs. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    "Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour, nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications."

    Well put.

    I would add, though.

    - If the network is privately funded, not backed by public concession or right of way, this should not apply if the TOS of are clear about it.

    1. Re:Yay libs. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The Liberals are the same guys who have been saying: "We need EI(employment insurance) reform, need it now, now, now!" But were the ones who forced the EI reform through to get the system as it is, but are now unhappy with it. Seriously, this stuff is politics 101 in order to get votes.

      Want to change the way things work in Canada? Get them to change how the CRTC operates.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  30. CRTC by javacowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    The CRTC regulates communications in Canada and it's an arm's length agency. That is to say that the federal cabinet can't control its decisions. The Conservatives tried to force them to deregulate VOIP. The CRTC disobeyed the order. There was nothing the cabinet could do.

    How do the Liberals expect to get around this fact?

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  31. Re:wow by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    You mean the one that lets parents pull their kids out of classes relating to sex or religion? Parents have always been able to do that, it's just a law now. When I was in elementary school I remember the yearly "religion miniseries," usually six days of hour long religion classes. I took the first one, realized that only Christianity was going to be represented and that the priest wasn't interested in actually answering critical questions, and convinced my mother that hanging out in the library would be a better use of my time. We all looked forward to the sex ed classes though, except for the poor Jehovah's Witness kid who had to go to the library.

    As far as I can see, the only reasonable criticism of the law is that it may be badly written, leaving "classes relating to sex or religion" ill defined. The law itself seems reasonable, if unnecessary. Of course, parents always have the right to yank their kids from ALL classes and home school them.

  32. Re:wow by twidarkling · · Score: 1

    Since there's no "religion" class in school, where do you propose creationism is taught in school? Because it fails the most basic scientific theory test-it fails to make any predictions about the future. It has one concept with no application to anything. Evolution at least not only explains where we came from, but what happens under certain circumstances, and why things like "superbugs" (bacterial infections that are resistant to antibiotics) arise. Thus, while there is evidence to support evolution, and none present to refute it, there is not only none to support creationism, by its very proponents, there cannot be. After all, once you prove it, you don't need faith, because you have evidence of God. Evidence of God goes completely against religion.

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  33. Re:evolution is not a religion. It is science. by twidarkling · · Score: 1

    That's because, after they find it, it's not MISSING.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071002-dinosaur-fossil.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7150627.stm

    All from the first page of a google search for "discovered missing links."

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  34. Re:wow by twidarkling · · Score: 1

    Creation isn't a "theory." To be a theory, it has to make predictions. Evolution does make predictions. And cross-species hasn't been observed because it takes thousands+ of years, which is why we use the fossil record.

    http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=discovered+missing+links&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 for some missing links found to support.

    What's more, techincally, scientists admit a theory can never empirically be proven 100%, only disproven. A proper experiment is geared towards saying "if this is true, then this should happen. But if it isn't, then this should." Then they look at the results to see if the "isn't" results happened.

    Creation theory, however, cannot be proven or disproven, because it's based on "belief." You can't prove belief, or it stops being belief.

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  35. Re:wow by yourassOA · · Score: 1

    Where did I say to teach religion in schools? That is my problem YOUR RELIGION being taught in schools. You can't prove evolution because you haven't observed anything evolve you believe in it without proof. Why has the theory of evolution changed so much over the years? You believe that there was nothing than nothing exploded and became everything. Who the the real wacko? You have faith in the big bang can you prove it happened or just speculate?

  36. Re:Are those the same Liberals... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

    No, it's the same Liberals who tried to introduce that legislation in the first place in 2005.

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  37. Re:evolution is not a religion. It is science. by yourassOA · · Score: 2

    wow those link showed some real conclusive evidence. I meant a real missing link that would remove all doubt from my mind not 3 bones and a drawing of what it might have looked like. And at one time science said the earth was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe.

  38. Re:wow by yourassOA · · Score: 1

    And cross-species hasn't been observed because it takes thousands+ of years Wow thats an easy way not to prove you point. But I thought the earth was billions of years old? Someone in billions of years of evolution never saw anything?

  39. Now if only the Liberal Party could be trusted by jbr439 · · Score: 1

    While in Opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada campaigned against:
    - wage and price controls
    - increased gas tax
    - against the FTA (Free Trade Agreement)
    - against the GST (Good and Services Tax)

    Once elected the LPC did a 180% on each of those issues. The LPC has a history of saying what it thinks will get it elected and then doing whatever it wants to do (not that other parties are blameless on this). So I wouldn't put too much stock in this unless a senior member of the LPC said it was a matter of integrity and that he or she would resign if the party didn't follow through on its election promise - oh wait, we've been through that before. Seems "resign" doesn't quite mean what one would normally think it does.

    1. Re:Now if only the Liberal Party could be trusted by Prune · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunately quite appropriate that some on the right refer to them as Lieberals.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  40. So what's new? by thethibs · · Score: 1

    To get net neutrality you need new regulations and more bureaucrats to enforce them and more bureaucrats to wipe the first gang's noses. What else would you expect from the Liberals?

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
  41. Why strategic voting won't happen (?) by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    If Canadians don't learn to vote strategically, he'll get in again and again.

    I predict the Canadians won't vote strategically.

    Let's first make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that the voters are split in three thirds, with two of them agreeing (to some extent, but much more than any other pair). You're saying the two semi-agreeing thirds should cooperate.

    If the people belonging to the semi-agreeing thirds didn't have some disagreement, why aren't they one lump of size two thirds? If they do have such disagreement, aren't you asking one third of Canadian voters to give up on something they value? I'd think that third would say "why not the other third?".

    The situation smells a lot like the ultimatum game: two players play; one player suggests a way to split a $100 bill, e.g. 60-40; the other play can either accept or reject; if he accepts, "the bank" pays them money according to the suggestion; if he rejects, no player gets anything.

    In the real world, in some cultures (the economically and socially better off), you have to get damn close to 50-50 before players start accepting. Telling one third of voters to vote strategically (i.e. giving up something without the other third giving anything) sounds like it's too far from a 50-50 split to be feasible.

    That's my take on it, fwiw...

  42. Net Neutrality is not the only issue unfortunately by rayk_sland · · Score: 1

    Ignatieff thinks he's a strong leader and wants to be the strong leader of Canada. He's disqualified on that basis, no matter what he says about net neutrality, I'm still waiting for a politician to be clear that that the electorate is the leader and the government is the management that we, the leaders, have hired. Now Harper used to behave like that, but may have forgotten. Ignatieff is not an option.

    --
    Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?