Slashdot Mirror
What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy
blottsie writes As the U.S. continues to debate how best to establish net neutrality regulations over Internet service providers, author and journalist Peter Nowak explains how how Canada has already dealt with these issues, and what the U.S. can learn from its neighbor to the north."[Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper has made the connection between telecom policy and actual votes, and that has had enormous impact on public policy," says Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. "This is a ballot-box or pocket-book issue that hasn't really been seen yet in the United States."
"The rules prohibited ISPs from interfering with internet traffic, except as a last resort, and urged them to instead combat network congestion with âoeeconomic measuresâ such as new investment or usage limits.
Those limits have resulted in relatively low monthly caps for Canadians, but the rules have kept neutrality violations to a minimum."
If given the choice between investing in infrastructure and usage limits what do you think American ISPs would do?
Also, all the speed in the world doesn't do much good with low caps.
While the US public internet is a sham it's no where as bad as the one the Canadians get to deal with. I'd say from what I've learned about Shaw, Rogers, and Bell Aliant it seems to be that Comcast and TWC still look slightly less evil. At our ISP are trying to play the cards (for now) while the big 3 in Canada know they are permanently allowed to screw their customers. The CRTC is a joke and should be re-established.
Aren't you also *soooo* CERTAIN that the WONDERFUL government of the US is going to make the internet BETTER?
Yeah, sure they will.
Not while the mega-conglomerates control the news AND the cables it runs on. And, of course, the Senators who would vote on it.
Apparently they can learn that it's yet another way to buy votes.
God help us all.
Obama calls for NN at a time when he has nothing to lose, a republican controlled congress that hates him, and he previously appointed a lobbyist for the industry to the head of the FCC.
For 6 years Canada has had their policy in place, in those same 6 years the Internet issues have grown worse here in the US.
Now put those 2 statements together and what do you think will happen here. -- notice no question mark.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
IF you really want to fix the Internet, and fix Net Neutrality, fix the last mile issue.
Right now I have a choice of the following Comcast Cable, AT&T DSL, or Wireless Internet. Comcast has the higher speeds, DSL is unusable where I am located, and wireless is too flaky. Comcast has no real competition on delivery.
My Solution: Upgrade the Municipality to FIOS service to a COLO facility. Bring Fiber to each home (one time bond build out) and have several providers offer service out of the COLO. Net Neutrality issues go away, you can pay for exactly what you want/need. Bandwidth issues become points for competition, "We've Peered with Netflix so SUPERHD videos now available!"
We do not need new laws to fix this, we need better understanding of how to build competition into the marketplace, rather than build in regulations that only serve the vested interests who can afford politicians.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Basically, if the ISP's are managing service based on content, they are no longer a neutral service provider ("common carrier" like the post office).
Therefore they can be held responsible for the content they're providing. (Hey, they're TAKING the responsibility, we're not dumping it on them)
Therefore the ISP should be charged with trafficking in child pornography the next time one of their users is charged.
I have no doubt that the lawyers will find a way to get the charges dropped, but it should make for some mighty interesting headlines until they do.
.....has he tried to use the internet in Canada?
1 GB caps on mobile is the norm.....
Most plans come with 50-300GB cap for consumer internet at home
Average bill of $80 for home and mobile.....
Most areas (including major cities) have a duopoly, the smaller ones are nothing more than resellers of the big ones......
Let's see:
- Implement a CRTC and ensure it is run by the major telcos. This way the CRTC can crush local competition while pretending to permit access to the major telcos lines.
- Said CRTC will always approve the most ridiculous limits the major telcos ask for, and will generally ignore complaints that the major telcos only have to bill themselves for overages on those limits. For example: 60 GB data transfer limits, then 300 GB data transfer limits, with exorbitant per GB transfer prices. These are only for data transfers between the major telco and the ISP, who have a direct link, however, it is added per customer. The CRTC will also approve additional charges per GB or something exorbitant link rates for the link between the ISP and the telco, however, this charge is added aggregate, thus double dipping.
- The CRTC will also approve of filtering that is implemented not at the ISP, but rather by Deep Packet Inspection by the major telco. This packet filtering will sometimes be implemented against the major telco's customers, but will always be implemented against the ISP's customers. It will slow anything encrypted to a crawl, send RST packets to torrent clients to get them to disconnect, and will typically ruin VPN connections.
- When the ISP requests something a bit less hamstrung, a direct VLAN connection will be the answer offered by the major telco, and is priced at prices from 1995 (this meaning a 5 mbit connection costs $300+ per month). The CRTC will make no moves whatsoever to update the pricing of this service.
In the end, what the US can learn is that despite all this government interference, the cheapest option for internet in Canada tends to be the local ISP that has chosen to lay their own infrastructure, just like in the USA.
Why would you take advice from a country with even lower bandwidth caps than the US?
"What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy"
How to make millions of dollars in profit by over-charging and under-delivering on products and services.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
> "What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy"
The advantages of moving to Germany.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Holy spin! This is so out of whack with reality. The "big three" have Canada by the nuts and they have no intention of letting go, and our fearless leaders seem pretty ok with that, despite their "gestures" toward a competitive market.
lot's of links here, for instance http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/d.... The "big three" are lying sacks of shit and clearly golf at the same club since their prices are exactly the same at all times. That there is competitive market, yep.
Net neutrality is an attack on our freedoms. An attack on OUR internet. Even if those attacks are small at the beginning, they will expand a little at a time until all freedom is regulated away.
Many Americans are threatening to respond with military force on the FCC, Congress, President or anybody else they feel are threatening their freedom.
It's great for keeping your computer cool.
What a stupid fucking premise! You need to learn to do the opposite of Canada! You need a government dumb pipe run by companies who will bid for management, and they will do it transparently, with wide open books for surprise inspections at any time.
Not while the mega-conglomerates control the news AND the cables it runs on. And, of course, the Senators who would vote on it.
It's the electorate's laziness, stupidity, and plain lack of interest.
Whether it's online, in person, or on TV; debates are people slinging soundbites at one another.
No one takes the time to really understand an issue - and it doesn't help that business and government (especailly local government) can be so secretive obfuscated.
Businesses, of course, say what is needed to acheive their ends. They lie.
This net neutrality is a perfect example of how business and government bureaucrats are working in cahoots with each other.
It's happened before. The DHS/TSA is just one big get rich quick scheme for government bureacrats - Chertoff, anyone?
What's REALLY scary is that the FDA is the worst.
And, bitch all you want about the EPA, but when it comes to my family's health - and I do what I can to double check the EPA and they aren't loose cannons as some say - fuck business. I am glad that the EPA is making polluting assholes who put profits above human life pissed off. I have yet to see unfairness from them.
Right now, the government needs votes, and telecom behaviour has annoyed a large enough minority that they're worth campaigning to. Pitching to minorities has been a priority for the government since they got in, as they previously had been criticised as being composed entirely of white western farmers and oilmen.
davecb@spamcop.net
We pay the price for the bit of regulatory advantage we have. I see US commercials for home internet and mobile data and am blown away. Data rates are so expensive up here in Canada compared to what is advertised in th US. My cell bill is 80 bucks a month, and I get a measly 1 gig a month shared with my wife's phone - she still has to pay 65 bucks for her phone service itself even though she shares my data (granted we get unlimited nationwide calling and texting, but this seems to be the norm for most plans). My DSL internet is 63 bucks a month at 15 mbps speeds and a 150 gigabyte cap (it was 60 gigabytes until six months ago). Don't even get me started on the cost of TV...
Well, you are in luck as the landfill that use to take Toronto's garbage no longer accepts it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_Farms_Landfill.
Oh, and nice spin, blaming everything on harper like he's some sort of 'god' who makes all the decisions and does everything in the country single handedly.
How about not fucking with the internet altogether.
Hell, yeah. That's what I'm talking about. This is why America is always #1.
As a Canadian speaking to Americans... You fools! Run away! Don't follow us!
We pay the price for the bit of regulatory advantage we have.
Not in my experience.
I see US commercials for home internet and mobile data and am blown away.
Canadians get offered advertised rates that are enough to "blow one away". In the small print, it's always "for the first 6 months, then it doubles". See Telus and Shaw for examples.
Data rates are so expensive up here in Canada compared to what is advertised in th US. My cell bill is 80 bucks a month, and I get a measly 1 gig a month shared with my wife's phone - she still has to pay 65 bucks for her phone service itself even though she shares my data (granted we get unlimited nationwide calling and texting, but this seems to be the norm for most plans).
Then shop around. I pay $40 / month and get 5 GB / month on mobile before throttling, unlimited global SMS, unlimited North America-wide voice calling, free MMS, voice mail, call conferencing, call display,... Wind Mobile. Oh, and the wife gets unlimited nation-wide calling for $25 too. Our accounts are entirely separate, there's no family plan or discount involved.
My DSL internet is 63 bucks a month at 15 mbps speeds and a 150 gigabyte cap (it was 60 gigabytes until six months ago).
I pay $30 / month for 7.5 mbps with a fuzzy 300 GB cap, which isn't really enforced and may only count during the hours from 08:00 to 02:00 -- never encountered an overage so I'm unclear. TekSavvy.
Don't even get me started on the cost of TV...
Yes, TV is a rip-off. Not sure that it's worse than in the US, so won't comment.
This site, Ars Technica, and others, are full of absolutely abhorrent behaviours and pricing from the US telecomm giants; I don't understand how you can look at them with any envy, or anything other than perhaps pity.
The rules prohibited ISPs from interfering with internet traffic, except as a last resort, and urged them to instead combat network congestion with “economic measures” such as new investment or usage limits.
The problem is that the usage limits do not enhance innovation, but serve to squelch it. Remove that avenue and things would be ifne.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
N/T.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
> > How about simple rules one at a time as needed.
>Oh, you mean Title II classification?
Title II is quite the opposite - over 100 pages of statute enabled by thousands of pages of regulations. You may have noticed Obama said he wanted to put them under Title II in regards to adding the USF tax to your bill and certain other parts, but not other parts of title II. The FCC commisioners had to point out that it doesn't work that way - the president doesn't get to write abnew law for some people by picking and choosing a few parts of the law he likes while leaving out other parts. If we want a new law appropriate for ISPs, Congress would need to pass such a law.
> > How about simple rules one at a time as needed.
>Oh, you mean Title II classification?
Title II is quite the opposite - over 100 pages of statute enabled by thousands of pages of regulations. You may have noticed Obama said he wanted to put them under Title II in regards to adding the USF tax to your bill and certain other parts, but not other parts of title II. The FCC commisioners had to point out that it doesn't work that way - the president doesn't get to write abnew law for some people by picking and choosing a few parts of the law he likes while leaving out other parts. If we want a new law appropriate for ISPs, Congress would need to pass such a law.
Actually, the FCC can do just that, according to the relevant law (cf. SEC. 203. [47 U.S.C. 203] SCHEDULES OF CHARGES):
I'd also point out that until 2002 (for cable ISPs) and 2005 (for DSL ISPs), these guys were subject to Title II regulation. Since they were reclassified under Title I, we've seen less competition, higher prices, more abusive terms of service and the theft (it's hard to call it anything else) of nearly USD$200 Billion in subsidies for new infrastructure and upgrades. As such, it seems to me that while Title II reclassification isn't the solution to the issues associated with broadband in the US, it would be a good start.
All that said, I do believe that reasonable people can disagree, and we should all try to hash this out in a way that favors the vast majority of people in the US, and not the large ISPs who have spent lots of money lobbying in Washington, DC and in statehouses across the country.
I believe that creating competition is the best way to do so. I also beiieve that this needs to be done both at the national, and more importantly, the state and municipal levels. I can detail what I think should be done if you like and we can certainly discuss it. I don't claim to have a monopoly on good (or bad) ideas, nor is my mind necessarily made up as to what the best way to go about it.
I do understand your suspicions about government intrusion into the private sphere, and I'm sure that in many areas we are in agreement about how big government is screwing us in favor of both monied interests and enhancing its own power and control. At the same time, some in government still think that they need to at least appear to be working for their constituents, so if we can leverage that to make a difference in our favor, I'm all for it.
I am convinced that the big ISPs have used their preferential positions to stifle competition, slow innovation and enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
That's what I think. I understand if you don't agree with me, but I don't consider you to be my enemy. Rather, I think that at heart, we have the same ideals (a nation of laws, which strives to provide maximum liberty and equality of opportunity). Perhaps we disagree on policy specifics, but I hope we can agree on the ideals.
All that said, what say you? What is your prescription to address the lack of competition, cronyism, regulatory capture that plague the broadband internet market?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
We may not have the net neutrality of our southern neighbours, but we have a much bigger problem with content. When the regulators allowed the telecoms and the networks to all merge, they put the control of the content into the hands of the telecoms.
Now we are in the situation where the telecoms buy up the streaming rights to much of the available content and require an expensive TV package to stream it. They are leveraging their content arms to boost sales of their TV delivery arms. The content that is available to stream for free (current week's episodes) is difficult for the average user to put on a TV screen. Some ISPs use caps to make Netflix (which has much less content in Canada) uneconomical, but their own streaming/VOD services don't count towards the cap. OTA is very limited outside of the biggest cities. Everything is design to protect TV subscriptions and minimize cord cutting.
The regulators need to either force a split of the content and the delivery arms, or impose very invasive regulation.
------- Mark
Wow! That is a good deal. Out of curiosity, what is the non-roaming coverage like for Wind outside of major urban centres like Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Toronto? Also, is the 4G/LTE coverage fairly consistent?
My DSL started out at $39 in 2012 (not counting the new subscriber discount), and has steadily increased about every 6-8 months to its present price for roughly the same level of service.
I was helping someone in Canada try to diagnose their ping problem on their Bell Fibe service. I found out that company has usage caps of about 80 gigs a month (depending on plan).
Of course, Bell Fibe also sells television service. And this service apparently uses IPTV technology since it can use a router/gateway to stream the video to set-top boxes. So, they give unlimited bandwidth to their own video service, but not to their competitors.
This is why some people say vertically separating the ISP part of companies from the the television service part is necessary. Net Neutrality is a good goal, but it doesn't matter if the cap the total bandwidth.
Wow! That is a good deal. Out of curiosity, what is the non-roaming coverage like for Wind outside of major urban centres like Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Toronto? Also, is the 4G/LTE coverage fairly consistent?
Sorry for the late reply.
Whistler is covered. Barrie is covered. Oshawa to London is covered, I believe. All around the western shore of Lake Ontario.
No LTE (not an issue for me in the slightest). HSPA (sp?) is okay for my purposes - I've run my whole home network through my tethered phone while between cable internet providers.
Windmobile.ca has a map of their supposed coverage. CoverageMapper app has very specific details as reported by users of the app on various networks (download and help fill in your carrier's coverage! (no affiliation)).
As for actual roaming, Wind customers roam on Rogers' network at what used to be $0.20 / minute (CRTC decisions of late might have changed that). When I was a Rogers customer myself, and my measly 180 minutes expired, I was charged $0.25 / minute. So... screw Rogers even though their network is good.
Wind also has apparently excellent US roaming (unlimited for $5 or $10 / month). I've never looked closely at it, but some people seem to like it.
Finally, Wind will provide the network unlock code for your phone if you get it through them, once you've been a customer for 3 months. So overseas travel is easy - swap SIM cards at your destination.
CoverageMapper allows users to report on their carrier's coverage world-wide... A great app that should be recommended by all mobile providers.
My DSL started out at $39 in 2012 (not counting the new subscriber discount), and has steadily increased about every 6-8 months to its present price for roughly the same level of service.
Sounds exactly like my experience in Vacouver with Shaw.
When I found out that one of the brothers in charge got highly intoxicated at the AGM and insulted investors, and was fired - kidding! - was paid to go away - to the tune of an $80,000,000 retirement package, well that was the final straw for me.
Bonus - TekSavvy as ISP over cable modem in Vancouver uses Shaw's quite decent infrastructure, but it's much cheaper.