Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy

Posted by samzenpus on from the great-white-north-policy dept.

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."

25 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Was impressed until.. by waspleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Was impressed until.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Well, in the US, rather than tons of red tape, bureaucracy, and regulations...how about simple rules one at a time as needed.

      1. You can't price based on traffic..all traffic is treated the same.

      Of course...you can flesh this out a bit, to allow for fixing traffic problems, etc...but keep it simple. Make it a law we can ALL read and tweak as needed with time.

      We don't need 2000 pages for this...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Was impressed until.. by RobinH · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least in Canada I know what I'm buying then. I get X GB per month, and there is (at least in my area) 3 different ISPs (1 cable, one DSL, and one independent) that I can go to. I go to the one that gives me more bandwidth, higher caps at a lower price (duh). It's $48/month for 300 GB, and there's an unlimited package for about $60, but we just don't seem to ever break that cap. (We came close once but reduced it by lowering the bandwidth settings on my wife's Netflix profile :)

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Was impressed until.. by iCEBaLM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in Ontario. I have the choice of about 25 ISPs, multiple DSL, multiple Cable, a few wireless, some satellite...

      The problem with DSL is the last mile belongs to Bell, the others just rent the lines at wholesale prices. Same with Cable, it's either Rogers or Cogeco, depending on location, for the last mile.

      However, unlike Cogeco, I get to pay an "indie" ISP $50/mo for a 20mbps/10mbps uncapped package, where Cogeco wants to charge $100 for the same thing.

    4. Re:Was impressed until.. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

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

    5. Re:Was impressed until.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We don't need 2000 pages for this...

      Hmm, seems to be a reference to the ACA. Note that we didn't need 2000 pages for that, either.

      Start with "Age of eligibility for Medicare decreases by one year for every 90 days after the date this legislation becomes law".

      Then, "All individuals under the age of majority (currently 18 in the USA, last I looked) are eligible for Medicare as of the date this legislation becomes law".

      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).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Was impressed until.. by jader3rd · · Score: 2

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

      Given the natural monopoly condition that laying cables in the ground creates, regulation can force the competition into existence. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

    7. Re:Was impressed until.. by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Competition introduced by regulation.

    8. Re:Was impressed until.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Was impressed until.. by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      Well, in the US, rather than tons of red tape, bureaucracy, and regulations...how about simple rules one at a time as needed.

      1. You can't price based on traffic..all traffic is treated the same.

      Oh, you mean Title II classification?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    10. Re:Was impressed until.. by number17 · · Score: 2

      Yes, its the same idea as cell phone usage. You get a certain up/down speed and a bandwidth cap. Based on the pricing, the GP is likely talking about Teksavvy who leases their cable and DSL lines from either Rogers and Bell.

      Here is an example of Rogers pricing: http://www.rogers.com/web/link...

    11. Re:Was impressed until.. by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Informative

      And what regulation, exactly, enabled that competition? Simply declaring ISPs as utilities will certainly not encourage that type of competition.

      Forcing the incumbents to, simply put, "wholesale" to IISPs. We went from a choice of 1 DSL provider and 1 cable provider per area to over 200 registered ISPs across the country. It's no where near as good as functional separation but it's better than the US system.

    12. Re:Was impressed until.. by kaladorn · · Score: 2

      Here's the difference between Canadian and US Health care (as a summary) before O-Care:

      US had a slightly higher top end standard (in places like the Mayo Clinic) and you could get better health care if you were covered by a great program from a good HMO (but it often cost). Canada had better overall coverage as we didn't have so many uncovered men, women and children. The problem in the US was that, if you got sick then had to change jobs, your new HMO likely would want to write up your health issue as pre-existing and you wouldn't have coverage. A friend of mine's wife worked for the State of Louisiana and had this issue arise. I can change jobs here or have no job and I still have decent coverage (better with the add ons from work, but nobody asks about prior conditions because it might be illegal).

      The issue with government health care O-Care style is this:

      If you had a single payer with some privatized service delivery (we do this), that's pretty effective. It's not terribly inefficient necessarily either as my friend's wife mentioned above worked in resolving health care claims in Louisiana and the state government spent a very large % of its health care budget (shockingly so) chasing HMOs and arguing over who would pay for what. That system was hugely inefficient and wasteful plus it slowed down resolution. That whole monstrous expense disappears with single payer.

      The issue the US is suffering from is you are trying to socialize and extend coverage but doing it by building on top of the existing corporate, flawed, corrupt HMO system and with things like kickbacks to doctors and clinics for pushing drugs and procedures and other things that wouldn't fly here. It's like trying to build a nice new luxury home on rotted pilings. The massive roll-out all at once was also a huge fustercluck. That's the worst way to deploy new solutions.

      Instead, it would have made sense to say:
      1) Identify a range of probable best-practices.
      2) Cook up a ground-up rebuild of socialized single-payer medicine with privatized service delivery in places where it makes sense.
      3) Deploy in a region (county/state) and run at least 1-2 years of pilot.
      4) Take lessons learned, revise, repilot for 0.5 - 1 year.
      5) Then begin national roll outs one state at a time.

      Much less chaos, better chance to test what you deploy and see how it works. Probably cheaper. And a ground up design rather than a built-on-troubled-systems approach.

      We don't know much up here in the eyes of some in the US, but we mostly get decent to good health care. Both of my parents are disabled. One had heart surgery, had a leg with open ulceration for about 8 years, then lost it when infection control was not possible. My other parent's car got hit by a 10 wheel dump truck making an illegal turn out of a local landfill. About 30 broken bones, 6 plates, 75 screws, other artifical parts just to get back to a fraction of her function and with a grim prognosis (although she's made 11 years now, things get worse day by day).

      Those two sets of surgeries, both life threatening, plus follow on work and surgeries, plus rehab, plus dressings (surprising how much full leg sized silver impregnated dressings can cost... $100+ per dressing change, changes from 2 times per day to three times a week depending on which phase we were in). I'd guess that was over $500K, likely closer to $700K or more. And our socialized system handled a lot of it.

      My parents were died in the wool conservatives (small c). Even they have been forced to admit the system has done a lot for them even though they used to be totally opposed to it.

      We watched my cousin (who married a girl from Missouri) go through a rough time as his wife lost her son at 28 with a dual heart and lung transplant needed. He lived for about 6 weeks of his son's life. He was just married. The surgery was going to cost $1M. They didn't have it, he didn't have coverage, and even though the town pulled together and did fundraisers, my cousin and his wife are still dealing with the crushing debt that left them.

      No, I'll take our system thanks. I just wish the folks in the US had one that ran as well (or even better, since ours is not perfect).

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  2. You mean keep talking but don't make changes by what2123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You mean keep talking but don't make changes by phishybongwaters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. And it won't be by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  4. Change Last Mile by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Change Last Mile by disposable60 · · Score: 2

      But that makes sense. It'll never happen unless it can be monetized into campaign contributions.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    2. Re:Change Last Mile by NotSanguine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    3. Re:Change Last Mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Change Last Mile by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      Right, but that's only because various municipalities allowed all kinds of monopolies in order to build the thing their constituents weren't willing to pay for themselves at the time. Hey comcast, come and lay this cable here at your expense and we'll give you legally enforced monopoly in exchange. Later: OMG monopoly!!!

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    5. Re:Change Last Mile by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      Citations please. How many municipalities have created their own local last-mile implementations? How many have gone bankrupt? You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.

      A quick search found Municipal broadband expansion blocked in many states. I'm not claiming that the municipalities are going bankrupt (like what happened with Provo, UT and why Google was able to buy their fiber for $1), but I know that's the reasoning being presented to the state legislatures. I wouldn't be surprised if a lobbyist could go before your average state representative and say "Municipalities are doing X, and going bankrupt over it. You'd better stop X in your state so you won't have to bail out your Municipalities", and the representative wouldn't spend time double checking the reality of the situation. They just know that they wouldn't want to deal with a budget crises where all of their municipalities are going bankrupt.

  5. the grass is decidedly not greener by mdmenzel · · Score: 2

    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...

  6. Re:the grass is decidedly not greener by Maow · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Re:Title II comes with thousands of pages. Even Ob by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

    > > 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):

    (2) The Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown,
    modify any requirement made by or under the authority of this section either in
    particular instances or by general order applicable to special circumstances or
    conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified
    in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.

    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