Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Justin Trudeau Is 'Very Concerned' With FCC's Plan to Roll Back Net Neutrality (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the setting-an-example dept.

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."

11 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. The U.S. needs a healthy government. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Justin Trudeau should also worry about the general breakdown of the U.S. government in many other areas.

    1. Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why? Canada is doing a fine job of undermining the principles of freedom and liberty.
      https://globalnews.ca/news/387...
      https://globalnews.ca/news/387...

    2. Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. by Strider- · · Score: 5, Informative

      Neither of those have anything to do with the federal government.

      What was your point again?

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    3. Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. by RedK · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's defending net neutrality which I assume we all want, so maybe we should give him a break.

      Sure, we all want Net Neutrality. However, I don't think Mr. Trudeau, a drama teacher, understands exactly what the FCC is rolling back.

      Even the FCC Commissioner, Micheal Orielly, an Obama appointee, doesn't like the 2015 FCC regulations, as they are not the Net Neutrality we want. From his dissent :

      (page 399)

      https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

      The FCC âoefactâ sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
      will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
      sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
      mere needles in a Title II haystack.

      So basically, what we want, ie, no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, are not the things the regulations really cover. Feel free to go through the PDF I linked, it contains both the Legislation and Micheal's dissent to it. This is a much more complicated matter than simply Net Neutrality vs Not Net Neutrality. The Media is simply not doing a proper job of reporting what is actually going on, and instead simply trying to paint a binary black and white picture of the situation to foster emotional backlash against the administration.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    4. Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      incorrectly claims can land him in jail?

      I believe one of the consequences could be a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine then you could be jailed: Is the contention Peterson made. Is that true?

      If that is true then it is semantics of what you are jailed for; not paying the fine as opposed to the reason for that fine and why that fine was not paid. Yes, technically you will not be jailed for that but you can be if you refuse to pay the fine over principle as Peterson has said.

      Is compelled speech acceptable in a society that values free speech?

    5. Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also as a Canadian, the problem with these "human rights" laws is that they don't get tried in a court, they get heard by a board. I have very real concerns about it, and I can see someone who hasn't taken the law seriously twisting some of these to actually land someone in jail.

      The problem is this: Peterson doesn't use someones preferred pronoun, a "Human Rights Board" sides with the special snowflake and fines Peterson. Peterson refuses to pay the fine. Then what? The ultimate consequence is he goes to jail.

  2. Re:orly by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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......
  3. Effect on Canada by lazarus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  4. i agree by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. wrong audience by Comboman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.
  6. No real winner by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.