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."

Comments

Was impressed until..

[waspleg]

"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.

Re:Was impressed until..

[JMJimmy]

Sounds like you are benefiting more from the competition than from the regulation.

Competition introduced by regulation.

Re:Was impressed until..

[cayenne8]

At that point, we're on a 12 year transition to Single-Payer, and everyone should be happy (except possibly the Insurance Companies that bought the ACA).

And those that don't want more if any govt intrusion and management of their health.

:)

I don't think the majority if Americans want Federal Govt. run healthcare. You still see that in the polls today.

You mean keep talking but don't make changes

[what2123]

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.

Re:You mean keep talking but don't make changes

[phishybongwaters]

Ahh, good ole Slashdot, were people with absolutely no knowledge or understanding feel the need to post comments...... I'll give you this much, Rogers is the Canadian version of Comcast, that's a fact right down to the traffic shaping (and denials). I also agree the CRTC is a joke. But I'll take my "crappy" Bell Aliant connection that is unthrottled and unrestricted compared to ANY major US ISP. Our handful of crooked corporations did the same BS the US carriers did, convinced the tax payers to subsidize their infrastructure upgrades (which never happened) and now they are scrambling. Bell has been on a major roll out finalizing their fiber network in my province, and offering pretty epic deals compared to any other competitors, including US ISPs. I have no monthly CAP, I don't know anyone who does. I torrent, I pirate, I stream, I take absolutely no measures to protect myself in that regard and have no complaints since, seriously, 2001.

And it won't be

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

"This is a ballot-box or pocket-book issue that hasn't really been seen yet in the United States."

Not while the mega-conglomerates control the news AND the cables it runs on. And, of course, the Senators who would vote on it.

Change Last Mile

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Change Last Mile

[NotSanguine]

Or it will never happen until you can figure out how to pay for it. Higher taxes? Higher fees?

Paying for it is not a big deal. Pay for it the way all public works projects are paid for, with a twist.
1. Create a non-profit corporation to implement and manage infrastructure owned by the local government.
2. Issue bonds to pay for the infrastructure.
3. Sell access to the infrastructure to ISPs who sell internet access and compete on price/service/features.
4. Use the revenue for maintenance, bond repayment and upgrades.
5. Profit^H^H^H^H^H^H High speed last mile with lots of competition.

Well, that was easy. Next!

Re:Change Last Mile

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the argument used by the incumbents, which has mostly been debunked. The small number of muni networks that have failed have been shown to be the result of mismanagement, malfeasance, or both. Municipalities that do proper due diligence and actually operate for the good of the people they serve have had a stellar success rate with mostly satisfied customers.