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.
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).
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......
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.
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
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.
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.
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 :-(
What you describe make it more "gay" than "masculine"...
We're getting screwed just as much by big telcos, thanks to the CRTC.
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.
i would be very careful about the premises you use for your argument.
22:37 for 5k is a pretty good pace, i agree especially if he was shaking hands along the route.
"leaving a trail of women in near orgasm" thats a hard one to prove unless you were running behind him interviewing the ladies. It is also rather presumptious to assume that all ladies are swooning over him with out some sort of scientific study to determine the distribution of ladies that find him attractive. For example, if the distribution of ladies swooning for JT is in the late 30's to early 40's then a 20 something year old probably should not be asking JT for any dating advice at all (unless said 20 year old is going cougar hunting)
"hes fit" hes reasonably fit by my standards
"a good boxer " https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
thats the only fight i could find him in in which he has a clear reach advantage. From that i would say he is a decent amature boxer, to declare him a good boxer i would need to see him fight someone more evenly matched.
"one of the most desired men on the planet" that right there is confirmation bias and kills your entire argument dead in its tracks. there is no way to logically state that he is one of the most desired men on the planet... note you might have gotten a pass if you had said he is one of the most desired national leaders on the planet, but even then i could have argued that a few of the others are more desirable.
The point that i am trying to make is that the definition of "masculine" is incredibly subjective and there is no way to create a logical argument on what is masculine or not. Personally i dont find JT to be very masculine and i am sure there are a few people who would agree with me as well as several who would argue with me on that. either way, you should just let people think that there are girly men north of the border because that kind of self imposed misinformation is rather funny.
As for the person who thinks that all men up here are girly men because of one man, well come for a visit you may be suprised to see that we have all sorts of men up here, maybe even a few that would interest you ;)
By contemporary American standards, I think being masculine means being a redpilled incel videogame journalism ethics advocate with a tiki torch and at least 6 guns.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The American goal was to annex Canada, the Canadian goal was to stay free. Suggesting the Americans won the war of 1812 is like saying Japan won WW2 because we all drive Toyota's.
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.
Your dad's cancer was never "free", it was paid for either by debt (ie. taxes on future generation) or theft from others hard earned wages.
Or perhaps from a pool of money that Canadians happily pay into so that they don't have to worry about bankruptcy from health problems.
> 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.
Go back in your hole, your "Freeman on the Land" schtick is tired and stupid. Every civilization since the dawn of time has exacted taxes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What a dumb fuck comment... The CRTC was created by Lester B. Pearson and Trudeau (father), two "liberals" in 67/68.
Your dad's cancer was never "free", it was paid for either by debt (ie. taxes on future generation) or theft from others hard earned wages.
Or perhaps from a pool of money that Canadians happily pay into so that they don't have to worry about bankruptcy from health problems.
Speaking as a well-employed Canadian whose taxes go into that pool (and whose family tax rate I imagine would be lower in the US) - this is why we'd never consider moving to the US. IMHO there's something seriously wrong with anyone who could use the word "theft" in this context, and any culture that enables that attitude is sick at a really fundamental level.
Hope your dad made a full recovery.
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.
...and so far, all of them collapsed. what's your point ?
The guy ran a 22:37.4 for 5K while shaking hands and leaving a trail of women in near orgasm.
You talking about Bruce Jenner?
Has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Health Care is exclusively Provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government mandate is that a public sponsored health care system is implemented in all territories within the country of Canada. It was Tommy Douglas who helped to create this compromise someone who though loved by the Canadian public was very much feared by Dief the Cheif and his cronies. His legacy is at the core of Canadian health care act.
The provinces are then funded accordingly and this funding system has been a huge bone of contention. What the Conservatives have tried to do for many years is Gerrymander the system to make it seem that the provinces, especially the ones who are not currently run by their associated provincial cronies are under spending on health care.
Therefore the differences between provincial health coverage and especially infrastructure funding becomes more pronounced during the reign of conservative governments, who use federal funding distribution of health care dollars as a political tool to keep themselves in power. If Harper had had his way along with the muzzling of federally paid scientists would have come a complete abrogation and dismantling of the federal health act so that health care funding would have become a completely provincial responsibility. Publicly funded health care in Canada is a delicate balancing act and the federal mandate is simply to ensure that access to health care is provided to all Canadians.
There are similarities in how the misuse of regulation of the internet could very easily become a similar monetary tool abused by the political party or individuals in power.
Justin is most likely thinking about a similar act when it comes to access to information and services on the internet. If we start to see internet providers blocking access to portions of the internet and redirecting traffic accordingly, I am sure that there will be hell to pay in Canada.
The Trumpification of information exchange American style by the FCC is something which will just increase the pipes to the rest of the world and will eventually hurt the sale of goods over the internet from the Canada to the US. This is exactly why Trudeau has been ramping up talks with other countries especially when it come to free trade.
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.
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
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 you describe make it more "gay" than "masculine"...
Slashdot is the last place I expected to see gay used as an antonym for masculine.
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.