Slashdot Mirror
Justin Trudeau Is 'Very Concerned' With FCC's Plan to Roll Back Net Neutrality (vice.com)
Justin Ling, reporting for Motherboard: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says President Donald Trump's plan to roll back net neutrality protections for the internet "does not make sense" and that he'll be looking into what he can do to defend net neutrality for the whole internet. "I am very concerned about the attacks on net neutrality," Trudeau said in Toronto, in response to a question from Motherboard about Trump's plans. "Net neutrality is something that is essential for small businesses, for consumers, and it is essential to keep the freedom associated with the internet alive." Motherboard asked specifically what Trudeau planned to do in response to the plan put forward on Tuesday by the Federal Communications Commission, which could pave the way for tiered internet service and pay-for-play premium access to internet consumers. "We need to continue to defend net neutrality," Trudeau added. "And I will."
Justin Trudeau should also worry about the general breakdown of the U.S. government in many other areas.
Gooooo Nice Hair! He gets it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That guy gets so much poutine!
He means well, but this is a US problem and he's the Canadian Prime Minister ... no jurisdiction.
As with many other issues, there is no substance to Trudeau's pronouncements in this case. At most, he has a bully pulpit, but not
one that the US administration is likely to listen to.
Our bigger problem here in Canada is that the Trump administration
seems hell bent on many ill-advised legislative changes, the most worrying
of which is that they will likely kill NAFTA. That's bad for all three countries,
but when has evidence ever bothered politicians, never mind Republicans, never mind Trump (in order of increasing levels of ignorance).
Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer, he even proved it on twitter
Thanks Justin - maybe you can now stop Bell, Rogers, and Telus from screwing us sideways with their predatory plans and network management strategies?
Less than a week ago, the overwhelming sentiment was that media mogul Barry Diller's opinion carried no weight because he couldn't possibly understand the real issues at play and had a vested interest to boot.
It'll be interesting to see how far the pendulum swings the other way for the opinion of Justin Trudeau, a politician and champion of centralized governmental control.
I'll go out on a limb and predict overwhelming support for Trudeau, regardless of his qualifications to speak on the subject and regardless of his own vested interest, simply because he has the "right" opinion.
No, the ideas that Google and Facebook censor are those nasty, independent though, backed up by disgusting facts right wing ideas, so Trudeau doesn't care about them.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Trudeau isn't perfect, but this time I'm happy to be a Canadian. The last time was when that lady got penalized a bazillion dollars for downloading a few songs, something which Canada has actively protected citizens from.
I guess you also call Chelsea Clinton Chelsea Hubbell. Just because you can look at someone and use "common" sense to tell their father isn't who is claimed doesn't mean that it's true. Often times, like especially with statistics, common sense is wrong.
Well, if Net Neutrality disappears, then the tiny forum website that allows people who are gay men for 6 days a week, but identify as lesbiantranspostandrogynousmiscellanouswhydoihaveapenis on Tuedays to chat with others like them might not be reachable, so the 2 people who qualify for this in the entirety of Canada would be horribly oppressed.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I am "Very Concerned" about Justin's masculinity. I thought there were men in Canada, not girly men.
What happens when a Canadian citizen, using a Canadian ISP streams a video from a service that is shaped by a US network because the infrastructure is in a data center connected to a US telco? Or if the network connection goes through a network that has not been paid off by the service? I'm assuming that if you don't pay (some indie service doesn't pay AT&T or Verizon or whatever) then that service gets throttled no matter the endpoint.
This overall move will probably tend to benefit Canada as more startups will probably locate in Canada (where the corporate tax rate is already at ~12.5%) and where there is at least a hope in hell of delivering their content to users without shaping.
I'm not sure how this will play out exactly, but it won't be good for US innovation.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Justin has been apologizing and trying to say popular things as of later. His government is loosing the confidence of the people, US citizen like him because he takes a good picture but we have to live with him. If marijuana legalization (government designed monopoly) doesn't work out you'll see him on a nation wide picture with puppy campaign. These are just fluff pieces!
the government should enforce net neutrality to prevent corporate pirates, predators and vultures from dominating it just because they have the most money and power and influence over the infrastructure,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
We have a problem with a vocal minority running out country. I just got done cutting wood and bit of welding, We have a lot of men, but they usually don't live in Toronto or Ottawa.
The US administration or even the US general public is not the intended audience here. Trudeau is trying to reassure Canadian consumers (and warn Canadian ISPs) that Canada's CRTC will not follow in the FCC's footsteps.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
trudeau can't defend the backcourt in a high school basketball game.
his response to net neutrality will be to find some new socks, lie down in the fetal position and start crying while taking selfies.
he's not a leader. he has no political background. he can't even answer simple questions in parliament. he's a substitute high school drama teacher. wish the world could see thru his bullshit.
Doubtful. This is the misconception in my view. Companies like Google need the web to remain open and free, so does Facebook and all of the other giants. If not the web will quickly becomes unpopular and will perhaps end up crashing the market.
All these platforms do are just content aggregates. Google is a Search Tool and Facebook is a meme and news dispensary. Sure you can charge people extra to view this content but the ramifications is competitors will crop up and undercut the providers and things will eventually just go back to the way things are. Lets not mention the administrative mess it would cause. Some providers being blocked others not, heck the system will just seize to be feasible anymore.
Net Neutrality is only needed in the US because of their dated infrastructure and monopolization (which can be fixed other ways, such as free markets and good old hard work). Half the world doesn't have it anyway. The real issue is not Net Neutrality, rather the abuse of the First Amendment rights which is going unnoticed. When will the media be put in its place? when will people who an opinion really be heard? those are the real problems in my view. Net Neutrality is the distraction, just like Gay marriage.
Net Neutrality isn't going anywhere, just as Gay marriage was an absolute certainty / inevitability. But to get people rolled up and have people fret over a cause, well thats far more important. Net Neutrality will be kept at the last moment and Trump will try to take credit for it, simple as that! Mark my words.
Trudeau may simply be saying this because he likes to project an image of being technically savvy, such as when he staged an "explanation" of quantum computing a while back.
He is also not averse to completely reversing promises that he later finds to be inconvenient.
Take whatever our pretty-boy Prime Minister says with a grain of salt.
I am "Very Concerned" about Justin's masculinity. I thought there were men in Canada, not girly men.
The guy ran a 22:37.4 for 5K while shaking hands and leaving a trail of women in near orgasm. He's fit, a good boxer and one of the most desired men on the planet. Maybe you should rethink your definition of masculine cause I would rather take dating tips from him than you.
Well, if Net Neutrality disappears
It would have had to existed as more than some words on paper first (it was never enacted/enforced) in order to 'disappear'.
Want to see what the 'net would look like without NN? Look around. That's how it's always been and is now.
NN as written reclassifies ISPs as common-carriers. This means that ISPs and device-makers would have to comply with CALEA which means mandated backdoors and LEA/TLA ability to intercept/decrypt everything codified into law.
Be very, very careful what you wish for.
You just may get it.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
neither do they live in Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver :-(
Given the pityful state of our FCC equivalent (ie. the CRTC, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) where regulatory capture has been king for decade, he should rather STFU and lay low. But that's a prime example of leftist assholery where he keeps "virtue signaling" to the whole world what is essentially none of his business, while he's continuing to be blind to the shitty situation in Canada. Nothing new...
We lost badly we just don't admit it. After the war much of southern Ontario was damaged. Our native allies lost their leader and any chance of forming a nation or even a political entity in Canada. England abandoned us and eventually recognized the USA's independence. The Duke of Wellington argued that North America was not in England's interest to defend and the negotiators gave America more than what they started with (and continued to do so for the next 120 years). We even paid America for damages and for the value of escaped slaves.
Saying Canada won the war of 1812 is like saying the USA won the war in Vietnam because they killed more people.
It's my understanding that many people believe that the USA won that war
Try looking at the facts. The US declared war on Britain after multiple provocations by the UK who were trying to stop the US providing Napoleon with supplies. The US's aim in the war was to try and conquer British North America (as it was then) and the British aim in the war was to stop the US supplying Napoleon. At the end of the war the border remained unchanged and there was no need to worry about Napoleon because he had been defeated. So the US did not achieve anything and the UK got what it wanted by default after completely blockading the US during the war. So it's hard to say whether anyone really won but if someone did it was definitely not the US.
The guy in the video who got JT to do that is such an asshole.
I am "Very Concerned" about Justin's masculinity. I thought there were men in Canada, not girly men.
So I'm not a big fan of personality politics (either shots against Trudeau, or the way he uses it in his favour), but you might want to watch this before saying that too loudly...
(charity boxing match he did vs Conservative Senator / black belt Patrick Brazeau - partisan commentary and "shiny pony" comments courtesy of Sun Media / Ezra Levant, an attempt to start a Canadian version of Fox News)
Trudeau can kiss my arse until he keeps the two biggest promises he's avoided so far.
I warned everyone about the Liberals' weasel words during the election, but people still vote either PC or Lib. The two both need to be kicked out for a long time to get them to reconsider their priorities.
Canadian Carriers are even worse. They want nothing more than to have net neutrality so that they can charge you a premium for all of the data you use. These large companies like to play both sides but they would like nothing more than to double charge you for your phone calls if they implemented Voice over LTE because under net neutrality, they cannot favour their voice data over other people's data which means that you get unlimited voice but then they will charge you for going over the data limit.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
"When ... did asking questions become something to belittle people over?"
I wish the managers of Slashdot would do something about the people who act out their anger toward Slashdot readers. It's not good for the angry people, and it makes reading Slashdot less pleasant.
> For instance, we have the idea that magically if we cut the corps taxes and the rich peoples that it will make life better for everyone
Nothing magical about it if you think about it for a minute. Suppose there are four countries:
Adanac: 12% tax rate, located in North America
Ocixem: 30% tax rate, located in North America
Asu: 40% tax rate, located in North America
Tarcomed: 100% tax rate (you don't keep any money you make, the government takes it all), located in North America
Which country would YOU most likely put YOUR corporate headquarters in? Is there any chance in hell you'd choose Tarcomed, where the government takes ALL the money as taxes, so you can't possibly make any money? Would YOU invest your 401k savings in a company that can only lose your money, it can't possibly make any money, because any and all profits go to taxes? Of course you wouldn't, unless you're brain dead. Nobody would risk their savings investing in a company that can only lose money.
So we KNOW, it is obvious, that very high corporate tax rates mean nobody will invest their savings and you'll have no businesses in your country. They'd have to be insane to risk their savings if the government was going to take most or all of the profits as taxes. The only question is HOW MUCH do people reduce investment at each possible tax rate? We know 100% tax will mean no businesses, and therefore no economy, absolute ruin. That's obvious.
It's also obvious that some companies will choose to pay the 12% net tax in Canada (or 30% in Mexico) rather than pay 39% by having their headquarters in the US. The only questions are HOW MUCH damage are we doing to the economy by having tax rates twice as high as most industrialized nations, and how high can we go before the economy is utterly and completely destroyed.
Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister of Canada. He sometimes forgets this in his desperate virtue signalling.
It is meaningless to the world outside the US, so who gives a shit? Let the Americans pay "by the website" for Telco and CableCo approved content.
If wee Justin wants to ensure that ISP's are treated as common carriers in Canada, that is what he should do. No one really gives a shit about Americans at all -- and what they do to themselves only affects themselves, and not anyone else on the planet.
The issue is, you suppose there is a free market (or that there could be one) when it comes to ISPs in the US. The ISPs have government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. In any area where your only options are the major providers, you'll only be able to choose between bad and also bad.
Funny (read: hypocritical) of the left to pump up the completely fabricated myth of Russia interfering in the U.S. election, but openly loves the Canadian government interfering in U.S. politics.
I've heard about Agit pai's plans to wipe out net neutrality - tons.
I've heard nothing whatever about Trump supporting that, except of course, just being the big boss. Is there some news I missed or was this fake news supplied by an editor somewhere? One could hope Trump will notice how hugely unpopular this move is, and realize that it otherwise doesn't butter his bread, and have a word with Ajit...or maybe two "You're fired".
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
What's the chance that companies might move their hosting up north?
Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
Says the Prime Minister of a country that allowed Bell to install Deep Packet Inspection boxes to look at every byte that their COMPETITORS transferred through their network. And worse, Bell would then decide unilaterally if they'd allow the traffic or not.
How the fuck can Trudeau be saying this shit without passing laws that should have put Bell's CEOs in prison for that? Sure, it didn't happen on his watch. But Bell could just go ahead and do it again any time they damn well please because our PM is too busy getting the police to work crimes like calling a transgendered person "He" or "She".
Citation:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2008/03/bell-wake-up-call/
Currently Justin and "family" receive $1.325 Million US Dollars that is tax free from Canada and US!
Hoy hoy!
Tax Man Knocking On That Door!
Hahahahahheheheohohoohhahahahaha
The leader of Canada, a nation with a population approaching that of California (36m Canadians vs 39m Californians) thinks that:
US domestic policy regarding internet neutrality impacts the rest of the world
As leader of a smallish nation believes he can somehow prevent 'the horror' of Trump administration rolling back net neutrality regulations.
How does the ability of an ISP to charge a service provider a fee for premium data rates to their US customers/users/visitors impact on a Canadian consumer?
Ken
Ted Cruz coudln't be the Zodiac killer. He would never be satisfied with ruining the lives of only 5 people.
I mostly agree with everything you said. One major impediment to Trump's proposal was / is that some leading Republicans like Bob Corker said they will not support any plan that increases the deficit, and I agree with you that he's right to take a stand. Senators Jeff Flake and Todd Young also come to mind for opposing deficits this year. Of course there is also much disagreement about how much the deficit will be affected - lower *percentage* tax rates and simpler tax laws tend to stimulate the economy, increasing revenue to some degree.
Investment tax (capital gains tax) rates are an interesting thing. There are three different factors at play to come up with the ideal rate. Most industrialized countries have looked at these three factors and calculated the ideal rates are far below the current US rates. We have some of the highest business taxes in the world, and we pay a price for it. Let's look at these three factors.
Obviously, higher rates tend to increase short-term revenue. That probably doesn't require any explanation.
The second is that higher rates decrease investment (savings), which has very negative effects on the economy. Consider two people you know makes you these offers:
Loan Bob $1000 today and he'll pay you back $2000 next week (unless he breaks his promise).
Loan Joe $1000 today and he'll pay you back $1001 next week (unless he breaks his promise).
Bob's offer is more attractive. People will invest more with Bob's offer, which has higher returns. Investment is crucial - it's investment money that is used to build factories, fiber optic lines, and everything else you need for a successful country and a successful economy. Investment is also how the ordinary middle class gets rich slowly, so they can retire with their own money instead of being a burden on all the younger tax payers. High taxes on investment discourage investment, which is very bad for everyone. Discouraging investment is bad for the W-2 employee too - the company you hope will hire you won't be hiring anyone if there isn't investment money available to grow the business. This is a strong case for very low taxes on investment and most successful countries consider this much more strongly than the US does.
Another factor is similar. If you're Joe, offering a very low return on investment due to high taxes, you won't just get a LOW rate of investment because people would rather keep their cash. Joe has been outbid by Bob, so the people who do invest will invest with Bob, not with Joe. Institutional investors and companies especially see the low investment taxes in other countries and send their money over their. So you have American companies investing their money in building new facilities in other countries, rather than having those facilities here. The COMPETITION for investment capital between countries is also a big deal. A LOT of money is invested overseas, high tech facilities built elsewhere, because the lower taxes there make other countries more attractive to investors and companies.
When you do all the modeling you can figure out which tax rate brings in the most revenue. People argue about what the ideal rate is. A third of OECD member countries have figured 0% capital gains is the best rate. Investment is so important, to everyone in the country, that any capital gains tax at all is damaging, in their analysis. Another third of nations have a moderate marginal investment tax rate of 10% - 20%, figuring that a tax at that level brings in enough revenue to offset the economic costs (or just not thinking long term). The US has among the highest marginal rates in the developed world, at 28.6%. Not surprisingly, the US also has a savings rate well below the worldwide average - people don't save up a lot of money when saving means the government takes a huge chunk.of the money. Most countries agree that's damaging because it's too high, and they set their rates lower than the US does.
So that's how the best tax rate on investment is figured - trying to raise revenue
What does NN matter if you can't even express yourself freely on the internet? Go f* yourself Trudeau.
Why is why we need municipal fiber networks...something that will solve a multitude of problems, but is fiercely opposed by the ultranationalistic conservatives and big business billionaire buffoons like Trump.
Allow me to paraphrase Ferris Bueller. "I'm not Canadian. I don't plan on being Canadian. So, who cares if they're socialists or not? They could be fascist anarchists for all I care. It still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car."
This is the same feeling that pro-gun people have when anti-gun types bloviate about Canadian or Australian gun laws. They don't care what goes on in other countries. They really don't. Point being, that the supremely unqualified Trudeau can have net neutrality all he wants within his own borders. He simply doesn't understand how the internet works.
I find it interesting that supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren cheered when she spouted off about companies using the roads that "the rest of US paid for" are also the same people who don't want companies to have to pay for their excessive use of bandwidth.
X concerns me. I am very concerned, and I will see what I can do about X. I am concerned.
bat eyelashes
-trudeau