Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

Canadian Government Rejects Net Neutrality Rules 287

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the never-ending-struggles dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian Press reports that the Canadian government appears ready to reject net neutrality legislation, instead heeding the arguments of large telecommunications companies . Michael Geist has posted transcripts of the documents which can be summarized as the government thinks that blocking or prioritizing content is acceptable, it knows that this runs counter to recommended policy, and it doesn't care because it plans to the leave the issue to the dominant telecommunications providers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Government Rejects Net Neutrality Rules

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:10PM (#17924294)
    Canada is unfortunetly under the minority rule of a conservative government that doesn't want to intervene too much in the economy etc. so it's normal that they reject net neutrality rules since they love big telco lobbying as well. This won't last too long. It's been a year since they've been in power and already the canadian population has become sick of this goverment. I predict elections this spring and with the result of a minority liberal government that will pay more attention to these netneutrality rules when time will come.

    Adi
    • Agreed. Anyone, telcos included, who thinks they've accomplished something by getting this government to agree is just blowing smoke. The Conservatives aren't going to last more than a few more months, and the polls indicate that their chances of returning are pretty low.

      Of course, the odds are that whoever wins, it will be a minority government, and the Liberals are every bit as much the ass-whores of big business as the Conservatives.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      This isn't a Conservative decision. This is a decision by the CRTC. While the CRTC is technically a part of the government, it isn't even really run by the government (it's run by a judge that wasn't elected by the government). The only way the government has power over the CRTC is to pass laws to contradict what the CRTC decides, which is obviously a major pain in the ass and a very slow way of doing things. The Conservatives plan to disband the CRTC as soon as it is feasible because of this sort of st
    • lol.. This isn't neccesarily any problem at all. The problem is that the argument against net tutrality can actualy be seen in a way that doesn't hurt consumers. In the process of delivering it this way, it also can make the argument for net nutrality seem rediculous. And when this happens, one has to wonder why net nutrality should be supported.

      The american FCC chairman said it best and the telco's are adopting a position simular to it. As long as the comitment to the consumer is met, there shouldn't be a
  • Eh? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:11PM (#17924314)
    It's a series of tubes, ya hoser.
    • by creepynut (933825)
      We know that, but it's all about giving the biggest pipes to the people with the deepest pockets!
  • "it knows that this runs counter to recommended policy, and it doesn't care"

    Yeah! Screw the people! It's not like we work for them anyhow.
    • by zyl0x (987342) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:17PM (#17924394)
      Just like when they recently voted on whether they should all get a 30% salary raise. We didn't get to vote, oh no, that wouldn't be fair.

      I wish I was allowed to vote for my own raises. All in favor of a 5000% raise? ME! Well that's settled.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Markus_UW (892365)
        Wasn't that the ontario provincial parliament? or did i miss the feds doing it too?
      • by Ubergrendle (531719) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:25PM (#17924516) Journal
        This was the Liberal party of the Ontario Provincial Parliament. They also did it just before the Christmas break, to minimise debate on the subject when people were preoccupied with the holidays.

        I am a bit disappointed in the federal government now though...the Conservatives aren't changing the policies of the previous Liberals in terms of media consolidation and copyright law. The more things change, the more they stay the same. We have more 3rd parties in Canadian politics than the US, but they serve more to offset the balance of power and have no real chance at governing (NDP, Greens, Bloc Quebecois).
        • by Curtman (556920)

          The more things change, the more they stay the same.

          At least the Liberal party didn't go shooting its mouth off about how Israel is justified and measured in turning Lebanon into a smoking crater over an unsanctioned kidnapping, and then turn around and pat itself on the back about doing it [jta.org]. The first goddamn thing they did when they got into office was cut all aid to the Palestinians. There is no victim in the middle east, both parties are equally guilty. Give both sides aid during peace times, and

        • Re:A Common Problem (Score:5, Informative)

          by David_Shultz (750615) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @06:29PM (#17926980)
          We have more 3rd parties in Canadian politics than the US, but they serve more to offset the balance of power and have no real chance at governing (NDP, Greens, Bloc Quebecois).

          Actually NDP and libs were about neck and neck during the last election (within a few percentage points). No one really noticed because the big story was the conservatives winning. The NDPs greatest obstacle is getting the Canadian population to stop believing that the NDP will never win. They have alot of support. On top of that, because of our stupid voting system, there are ALOT of would-be NDP voters who are scared of the conservative party winning, and end up voting strategically in favour of libs. It is worth noting that all of our small useless parties are left leaning. It is also worth noting that our one big right leaning party was formed by combining two smaller right leaning parties. You can thank our voting system for this stupid states of affairs where the majority of Canadians are clearly and decisively left leaning, but we are ruled by a minority conservative government. Crappy.

          I am a bit disappointed in the federal government now though..

          I am more than a bit disappointed with this government. Besides hacking away at social programs, increasing taxes for the lowest bracket ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/01/06/taxes-tory 060122.html [www.cbc.ca] ), and refusing to speak with the media ( http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/24/harper05 242006.html [www.cbc.ca] ), the conservatives, who ran on a platform of "accountability", are already being investigated for illegal activities ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/20061226/conservatives_donations_061226/20061226 ?hub=Canada [www.ctv.ca] , http://www.wernerpatels.com/musings/2007/01/conser vative_pa.html [wernerpatels.com], http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2007/01/putting-con-in- conservative.html [blogspot.com]), after only a year! Not to mention the fact that Harper is a climate change denier (until about three days ago when I suppose a pollster told him the issue was important to Canadians). Plus, I think the fact that he's spending massive amounts of money for military patrols of Northern waters is a nice touch; only Americans ever trespass there -is Harper planning to shoot them? To finish, how about some nice quotes from Canada's present leader (sadly), Steve (as Bush called him):
          • Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society...
          • I don't know all the facts o-n Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.
          • I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage.
          • In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
          • "I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians
          I have nothing else to add except that I am saddened by the current leadership of my country .
  • by js92647 (917218) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:12PM (#17924320)
    are we fucked? I actually had hopes in the Canadian government but it seems all they are capable of is causing shit. And what kind of a government would leave a thing such as THE WORLD WIDE WEB in the hands of business'?
    • by Moby Cock (771358) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:23PM (#17924486) Homepage
      We are not fucked yet! Spread the word, we need to get Harper and his pack of hell-hounds of office.
    • what kind of a government would leave a thing such as THE WORLD WIDE WEB in the hands of business'?

      It's been in their hands for over ten years now, and seems to be thriving. Why do we expect that to change anytime in the future?
    • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @04:01PM (#17924996) Homepage

      are we fucked? I actually had hopes in the Canadian government but it seems all they are capable of is causing shit. And what kind of a government would leave a thing such as THE WORLD WIDE WEB in the hands of business'?
      A government who believes everything needs to be in the hands of business, that's who.

      See, if you advocate that there are certain things the government (and only they) should be in control of, people think you're left leaning. If you advocate that the government should stand back and allow business to do as they please, and the 'guiding hand' of the economy will keep it on track, people think you lean to the right.(*)

      This government want to look like they're reducing the cost and size of government, so they're perfectly willing to feed us the lie that businesses are capable or interested in doing what is right for all of us, instead of just right for their bottom line. Basically, from my pespective, they keep trying to shove their own unpopular agenda down our throats under the pretext that, even though we all disagree with them, that they really do know the right thing to do for us.

      So, yes, if the government is going to do that, I think we're fucked.

      Cheers

      (*) Grossly simplified for purposes of discussion.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:17PM (#17924398)

    [Net neutrality] stops telecom giants from ensuring that pages of companies that pay them load faster than any others.
    No, it stops telecom giants from ensuring that pages of companies that *don't* pay them load *slower* than any others.
  • Net Neutrality? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by u-235-sentinel (594077) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:20PM (#17924452) Homepage Journal
    I haven't thought much about Net Neutrality until Comcast disconnected my HSI service and terminated the account because I used the internet too much. Now I'm finding people all over the country who have had similar problems including a journalist for the Deseret Spectacle [blogspot.com].

    I've found other people throughout Utah who are dealing with this problem. My search has lead me to other states with people asking the same questions I have been asking [youtube.com].

    This is just a couple of instances where Comcast has demonstrated unfair business practices. I'm wondering if Net Neutrality would curb this sort of abuse from companies. I'm ok with following the rules (don't get me wrong). But to be expected to minimize Internet usage without knowing what the rules are is pure B.S.

    Heck, I've had people on my blog accuse me of all sorts of stuff. Unfortunately, it's not even close to the truth.

    If I'm misunderstanding what Net Neutrality [wikipedia.org] is please enlighten me.

    BTW, if you are from Utah and have been disconnected by Comcast please contact me by posting on the blog. I receive all messages. I'm compiling a list and plan on passing it along to Bill Gephart. We've been working for the last few weeks to resolve this. He's already begun interviewing people I've found. Thanks!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Annirak (181684)
      Telecom companies are implementing things like traffic shaping--that thing which squashes your bittorrent traffic while still allowing VOIP and google access to run at full speed. Lately, the telecom companies have started hinting that they might start charging for optimal delivery. That is that CNN's website, having paid for premium delivery with your ISP, will have 8x the bandwidth available to you as, for instance, youtube.

      Net neutrality is the opposite of that. It dictates that all traffic must be tr
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        Telecom companies are implementing things like traffic shaping--that thing which squashes your bittorrent traffic while still allowing VOIP and google access to run at full speed.

        I'm ok with that. I pull down Linux ISO's occasionally, the WoW patches I believe are all through p2p plus I'm a big fan of Zudeo (reign of the fallen DVD rocks!). If it took longer to download I'm not terribly worried about it. Disconnecting customers on the other hand... :-)

        Lately, the telecom companies have started hinting th
      • Lately, the telecom companies have started hinting that they might start charging for optimal delivery. That is that CNN's website, having paid for premium delivery with your ISP, will have 8x the bandwidth available to you as, for instance, youtube.

        I don't see anything wrong with that.

        What I would find troubling would be if my ISP throttled YouTube down to 1/8x the effective bandwidth they previously had available, because they DIDN'T pony up a "premium delivery fee". That's protection money, and would su
        • Re:Net Neutrality? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Zenaku (821866) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @04:37PM (#17925386)
          You seem to be missing the point that charging providers for "optimal delivery" IS throttling down the bandwidth for anyone who doesn't pony up. The two ways of phrasing it are just different ways of saying the same thing. The "optimal delivery" given to those who pay isn't the result of some magic bandwidth that appears out of nowhere, it comes from prioritizing those packets over all the other packets.

          Metaphor: If the network was like a system of roads, "optimal delivery" would describe what we give to emergency vehicles with their sirens and flashing lights on -- they get through, everyone else has to pull over and stop to let them by.

          So if you haven't paid for optimal delivery, your packets are being slowed down. And the more providers who shell out for optimal delivery, the more it slows down the traffic of everyone who doesn't. And when at last EVERYONE is paying for optimal delivery, then what? We're back to where we started, except that now everyone is paying, and they can introduce super-duper-optimal-delivery, where your packets are prioritized over those from providers who merely paid for "regular-optimal" delivery.

          Fun!
      • Re:Net Neutrality? (Score:5, Informative)

        by tinkerghost (944862) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @05:13PM (#17925852) Homepage

        Net neutrality is the opposite of that. It dictates that all traffic must be treated equally.
        Actually it's a bit more refined than that. Net neutrality dictates that all similar traffic must be treated equally.
        • All HTTP requests have to be delivered equivalently reguardless of source or destination
        • All VOIP requests have to be ....
        • All torrent requests have to be ....
        • ....

        However, VOIP & HTTP requests can be routed with different priorities - VOIP is sensative to lag, HTTP isn't.

        The concept of traffic shaping is to provide a QoS [Quality of Service]flagged route for packets which maximizes the use of the fastest, cleanest routes for lag/packet loss sensative protocols, while relegating less sensative packets to routes which may not be as responsive. The Telco extention[perversion] of packet shaping is to convert the selection criteria from protocol needs to accounting balance. Thus some of the Canadian telcos have already started to throttle Vonage service to the point of compromising service quality - remarkably just before they roll out their own service which doesn't seem to suffer the same problems.

    • by whoever57 (658626)
      Yes, you are misunderstanding net netrality.

      Net Neutrality does not mean that your ISP cannot impose caps. If you use too much bandwidth and they cut you off, there may be other laws or policies that your ISP violates, but not net neutrality. Net Neutrality means treating all packets the same, irrespective of origin or type. If your ISP cuts off all packets, they are treating all packets the same.

      Now, if your ISP cut you off for using Vonage, or they imposed traffic shaping so that Vonage did not work well,
    • by nate nice (672391)
      Destroying Net Neutrality will destroy the Internet as we know it.

      Right now, everyone gets treated equally among ISP's and such.

      What telecoms and major ISP's want to do is throttle sites and force them to pay to have optimal delivery of their data.

      That is, my news site will be sent to you very slowly because I can't afford to pay the ISP's and telecoms lots of money to prioritize my site. Meanwhile, another news source will go through their pipes rather quickly because they pay for it.

      Right now they are us
    • I haven't thought much about Net Neutrality until Comcast disconnected my HSI service and terminated the account because I used the internet too much.

      How much did you use? Did you get a warning letter or just summarily dropped? Local franchise agreements might have something to say about this.
  • easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:21PM (#17924454) Homepage
    Let companies prioritize their delivery, but when they advertise performance, they're only allowed to use the lowest common denominator. Time Warner can then stream HD stuff just for their customers, but when they advertise 4 megabits down, they aren't allowed to throttle anyone below it.
    • Ah yes. "Truth in Advertising." Not. Don't expect any company to lobby for that kind of bill. Remember, if something can be accomplished cheaper by smearing congressmen or "donating to a good cause," then that's gonna happen. And no, I'm not being sarcastic or joking.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Ok. You get your 4Mb/s pipe to your house. No throttling. Too bad none of your content providers paid us for the privledge of communicating with you across our network. We're not throttling your bandwidth. Hell, if you want we can send you 4Mb/s of random 1s and 0s if you want to prove you are getting the bandwidth to your house your paying for. Now tell your deadbeat content providers to pony up so they can help you use that bandwidth for something besides exercising our PRNGs.
    • Re:easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:51PM (#17924866)

      Let companies prioritize their delivery, but when they advertise performance, they're only allowed to use the lowest common denominator. Time Warner can then stream HD stuff just for their customers, but when they advertise 4 megabits down, they aren't allowed to throttle anyone below it.

      Conceptually, this might make sense, but practically, it won't work. Can Time Warner guarantee that every service over the Web will be able to send them 4 mb? Look at it this way Time Warner Advertises 4mb and delivers it. AT&T, who happens to be sitting in between Time Warner and NetFlix, calls up NetFlix and says, "give us 10 million bucks or we slow down all packets from your servers that transit our network." If Netflix complies, maybe the end user will get 4mb through their network and all the way through Time Warner's as well. If Netflix does not comply and AT&T slows them all down, Netflix download at half that, but Time Warner hasn't done anything about it.

      Theoretically, this probably violates AT&T and Time Warner's peering agreement and Time Warner can complain. Realistically, however, This isn't just Netflix, AT&T and Time Warner, but a dozen different networks in between, any of which might be the one degrading service because Netflix did not pay up. How much chance is their that Time Warner will be able to influence their peer's, peer's peer's peer's peer in getting them not violate a peering agreement they have with someone six contract negotiations removed from them?

      On top of all that, even if it is Time Warner doing the extortion directly, they can advertise 4mb down, but still mess with latency or other traffic aspects that they don't advertise. Even if customers are smart enough to know what is up, in many localities they may be the only service provider and the law in that locality makes it illegal for anyone else to run lines to people's houses, even if they could afford to without the huge government subsidies given to Time Warner out of our tax dollars. Realistically speaking, I think legislation or free, government run internet access is the only way to solve this.

  • Funny after all the complaining and ranting about US being a bunch of sick bastards for not wanting to surrender the internet, the complainers ended up being none other than more politicians who wanted the power for themselves. What power hungry leader is a US hater to idolize?

  • Harper's at it again (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Secret Rabbit (914973) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:37PM (#17924684) Journal
    I all honesty, what hasn't the Harper gov /not/ fucked up. In fact, every decision they've made, everything they've done, ONLY benefits the rich. Anyone surprised by this hasn't been paying attention.

    Also, there's absolutely nothing that can be done. They'll just "go it alone" and do whatever they want to do anyway. All that without communicating at all with the media because they want our journalists to write down the question before press conferences and our journalists refused (yes we have real journalists here).

    Hey, US people. We now have an un-government too! Now all of North America is fucked!
    • Yeah!

      I was actually pretty pissed when they cut the GST.

      That doesn't really affect me (seriously, a penny on a Tim's, who cares?) -- but it DOES affect our national debt AND poor people (I'll bet they get smaller GST cheques now).
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Markus_UW (892365)
        My GST cheque's the same, as far as I can tell... though it prob. wouldn't be till next year tat that changes. Anyways, this and the comment above it are pretty troll-y... like sure this government hasn't done a lot in the last year, but the government before it, you know the one that was in offics with a majority for 12 years or so? what all did they do? NOTHING. And i'm pretty sure that they (the liberals) were discussing doing this too, when they got knocked out of power.
      • but it DOES affect our national debt AND poor people (I'll bet they get smaller GST cheques now).

        The theory of the GST rebate is to compensate poor people for having to pay the tax. If the tax is reduced, then so is the amount they spend on it, and so is the amount the deserve to be compensated.

        Most bleeding hearts say that consumption taxes unfairly target the poor people because they need to spend most of their income on consumable items (of course, rent doesn't have GST). It seems odd that you would

    • The parallels between Harpers Administration and the Bush administration are almost universal. Except that Harper is actually more the brilliant strategist like Karl Rove than he is a Bush like figure. He keeps an extremely tight reign on the press and his MPs. The only info that you get from the conservatives is completely vetted by Harper. Harper is the new conservative party.

      I have a lot of respect for his ability. Which is the scary part, because I completely oppose him. Nothing is more frightening, tha
    • TELUS is at it again (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mandelbr0t (1015855)
      I'm definitely disturbed by this news. However, this is more a case of TELUS flexing their political muscle than Harper flexing his non-existent political muscle. Technically TELUS already violates net neutrality; there's a special gateway for routing Google (traceroute www.google.ca from the TELUS network). Not surprisingly, no one has complained yet.

      However, TELUS has a terrible tendency to overcompensate when they actually do something. Don't like certain servers sitting on residential line? Block incomi
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:38PM (#17924696)

    Once again it seems that large corporations have managed to win the day because people are stupid and/or lazy. Whenever a remotely complex topic arises, they manage to confuse the issue by making claims that the topic being discussed is really something else and they're against that something else. In this way, they and politicians lobbied by them can argue against that something else, while voting against the topic at hand. People with party loyalty can simply choose to believe them, and most everyone else is confused enough by the disconnect so that the big boys get their way.

    In this instance, the issue is net neutrality. Basically, it was asserted that since much of the infrastructure was funded by the government and since many of the last-mile providers have government enforced monopolies, maybe it would be wise to ensure that companies are forbidden by law from discriminating against traffic on their network based upon who sent that traffic. For example, this would mean AT&T cannot intentionally slow down or lose VoIP packets from some company unless they treat their own VoIP traffic the same way. Let me repeat the important part here. Net neutrality is about stopping discrimination based upon who sends something, not what is being sent.

    So the big companies hire some PR firms to make up a new issue, which they can claim is what the net neutrality laws are really about, and which the average person might conceivably be against (since no one in their right mind could argue that net neutrality as described above is a bad idea). So they claim that Net Neutrality is about stopping telecos from discriminating based upon the type of traffic. They use the example of file sharing networks as "bad" traffic they want to be able to run slower. They use VoIP as traffic they want to ensure runs faster. All the while they make sure to outright lie and claim that the proposed net neutrality legislation would stop Quality of Service traffic shaping.

    Every time an expert looks into it, this is shown to be false. How many evaluations have we had now that say QoS is not restricted by proposed net neutrality legislation? And what about encryption? Widespread deployment of encrypted tunnels makes discriminating based upon the type of traffic useless anyway, and would certainly be adopted (and has been) to foil and attempt to use QoS to discriminate. So the entire argument is bull crap.

    The net result of all of this is most people who have heard of net neutrality being completely misinformed about what it is, or scratching their heads in confusion while the large network operators laugh their asses off and prepare to discriminate against competitors and start extorting money from certain Web services providers who don't have anything to do with them other than the fact that some of their traffic ends up transiting their network, providing an opportunity to waylay it like some sort of internet highwayman. Hey Canadian government, I hope you're proud of yourselves for helping to undermine the most important innovation in the last 20 years.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by micromuncher (171881)
      Stupid or lazy? How about capitalism. Later you nail it when you mention lobby groups... Government creates policy based on commerce, not for the popular good.

      Doesn't matter, election comming, all gonna change.
      • Stupid or lazy?

        People are too lazy or stupid to read the proposed legislation and understand it themselves. As a result, government officials and company spokespersons can happily lie about the issue without everyone voting them out of office.

        Doesn't matter, election comming, all gonna change.

        I doubt it, since no one knows what the issue is, why should any politician do anything but what lobbyists are willing to pay them for?

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:45PM (#17924774) Homepage
    The arguments made by the legislators are the same arguments we always hear, with the same misunderstandings on how this stuff works. It's like a broken record. All of the following is from a US-centric viewpoint, so please correct me for any differences that apply in Canada:

    The Internet is not regulated in Canada. There is no regulation of the relationship between Internet service providers and the providers of Internet content.
    I don't know about Canada. But in the US, this is not true - there are common carrier laws and FCC's weakened neutrality rules. Is there really nothing equivalent at all in Canada?

    First, the Internet has never been truly neutral or equitable with respect to data transmission...preferential content arrangements, filtering and blocking to control network abuse, as well as 'traffic shaping' in order to ensure an acceptable service level for all subscribers, despite the bandwidth-demanding activities of some users.
    I know of no preferential content arrangements done by any ISP. Is this happening somewhere and I don't know it? This guy implies that it is common. Traffic shaping is done on local networks by businesses, but it is currently not done by ISPs. When it is (Trying to throttle P2P, for example) it is met with outrage. And it certainly isn't necessary to ensure acceptable service. The only reason the service might not be sufficient is if the ISP advertised more bandwidth than they really have.

    ... impeding competitive market outcomes....rigid net neutrality legislation may prevent such innovation.
    Except that user's don't have choices in ISPs. There are usually only 2: the local telecom and the local cable company. That's not enough to allow market forces to kick-in. Hence the need for regulation.

    ...previous business models that attempted to limit consumer access to content (e.g., AOL, Compuserve, otherwise known as 'walled gardens'), have failed...
    This is completely different. AOL and CompuServe were not ISPs, and they didn't advertise that they were ISPs. That was pre-internet and doesn't apply. Besides, we are talking about subtyle slowing-down internet traffic, not walling it off.

    ...without differentiated treatment, there may be no incentive to pay for the actual costs, resulting in under investment.
    The usual FUD about how Google gets a free ride, which isn't true. People think it makes sense if they don't know about peering.

    I wrote a quick-and-dirty anti-FUD article [mobydisk.com] in an attempt to correct these misunderstandings. If anyone is fooled by the above arguemnts, point them there.
    • Traffic shaping is done on local networks by businesses, but it is currently not done by ISPs

      Incorrect [michaelgeist.ca]. In Canada, Roger's (major cable company) does try to traffic shape P2P traffic. Fire up bittorrent without protocol encryption and see. The public largely doesn't notice and Rogers can live without those who do.

      Except that user's don't have choices in ISPs. There are usually only 2: the local telecom and the local cable company.

      Incorrect. In Canada last mile telco providers are forced to allow competit

  • by Phrogman (80473) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:48PM (#17924830) Homepage
    That our government - like most Western governments - is firmly in the grasp of big business, and no longer really represents the will or interests of the people. Welcome to the "Illusion of Democracy". Government seems to consistently represent the interests of corporations over the interests of the people, at least at the Federal level.

    Unfortunately, the Conservatives got in based on support of a lot of the older demographic, mostly in reaction to the horrid Liberal Government we had for years. The only thing I can't believe is that they were willing to elect Stephen Harper. The guy seems so insincere, so slimey, I wouldn't buy a used car from him. I can't believe hes head of the country at the moment. Its a sad period for Canada.

    Time to contact your MP and protest I suppose, although I no longer have much hope that can accomplish anything. Our country seems to have the best politicians money can buy :(
    • That our government - like most Western governments - is firmly in the grasp of big business, and no longer really represents the will or interests of the people. Welcome to the "Illusion of Democracy". Government seems to consistently represent the interests of corporations over the interests of the people, at least at the Federal level.

      Oh great. Now my country is exporting good old-fashioned American Passive Fatalism to our northern neighbor, too.
  • it knows that this runs counter to recommended policy, and it doesn't care because it plans to the leave the issue to the dominant telecommunications providers.
    Otherwise known as we pay experts to tell us things, but we get paid by telcos to ignore them. Different government - same corruption.
  • Cost? (Score:5, Funny)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @03:54PM (#17924912) Homepage
    I wonder how much a canadian MP costs. Love to buy a couple. Sad to see that Canada is for sale.

    Tom
    • Lease.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tinkerghost (944862)
      You lease politicians. You can never really buy them. You lease them for a few votes then return them back to their parties - just like a leased car going back to it's dealership.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @04:12PM (#17925124)
    Remind me again what makes Canada so superior to the USA. I seem to have forgotten at the moment.
  • It seems clear that some Internet providers (large and small) have some interest in limiting, censoring, or otherwise filtering their customers' content. Likewise, governments appear to have little interest in banning those same providers from doing just that (not to mention little ability in drafting legislation actually aimed at banning it). Companies have all kinds of reason to limit content (which they consider a benefit to their customers), and governments have little incentive to stand in the way of w
  • I'm moving! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Astin (177479) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @04:16PM (#17925168)
    That's it. First this right-wing government gets in, then Bev Oda starts pushing RIAA-like rules, and DMCA crap comes along.. and now anti-net-neutrality! I'm done. I'm moving to The USA where they don't have these prob.... oh... hrmm... Engla... no.. France? ehhh... Russia, here I come!
  • NO TOLLS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rosesuchak (951518)
    We do not need tolls on the information highway. Imagine applying the non-neutrality logic to our road systems. Cars restricted to only the inside lanes or the local roads while the big fleets dominate the middle and passing lanes because they pay a fee to get such access. No thanks. If the telcos want more revenue then they should focus on infrastructure and greater bandwidth. Whatever happened to fiber? If the Canadian government cows under then they are toast.
  • by LordofTruth (1061200) <rnanaimoNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @04:20PM (#17925202) Homepage
    Without net neutrality Slashdot's parent company could have blocked any attempts by Digg to prosper. Microsoft could have blocked Google. YouTube wouldn't have amounted to much compared to Google Video. Net Neutrality helps great ideas become reality. We would never even know about many of the little startups that have become the great sites that they are today.
    • by Wateshay (122749)

      Without net neutrality Slashdot's parent company could have blocked any attempts by Digg to prosper. Microsoft could have blocked Google. YouTube wouldn't have amounted to much compared to Google Video. Net Neutrality helps great ideas become reality. We would never even know about many of the little startups that have become the great sites that they are today.

      Yet all of those things happened without the laws that are currently being proposed. I'm with everyone else here in my belief that ISPs shouldn't

  • How long will it be before the Culture Nazis in Ottawa start requiring ISPs, etc, to prioritize their notion of "Canadian Content" over other traffic on the net?

    What's next: Every 4th byte of traffic passed by an ISP has to originate in Canada?

            dave
  • I am not Canadian but it seems to me like you are having the same problem that the US is having with elections. You only have two major parties. As long as we limit ourselves to two parties and flop back and forth between them because the party we elected last term did something we didnt like, the system is never going to change. I think the only way to see real reform is to throw both parties out and find a third option. I am not sure about elections in Canada but I know it is possible for independants to
    • Canada has a multi-party system of government and four major parties: The Conservatives (current minority government), the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc Québecois. However, only the Conservatives or the Liberals actually win enough seats to form a government (so far). The other two parties can play a significant role however if the government is a minority one (as it is now). By giving their support to the Official Opposition in a critical vote they can cause the government to be defeated and forc
  • I bet Bell is happy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sherriw (794536)
    Oh man, Bell must be rubbing it's hands together with glee. Considering that many smaller ISPs in Canada are acutaly resellers for Bell, I wonder if this means Bell can also slow down any content that is flowing through their resellers' accounts.

    The day I notice this in my day-to-day browsing is the day my ISP gets a call from a VERY pissed customer. I bet ISPs who don't do this will get a flood of people switching to them.
  • I wonder how much more $ it will cost the Canadian Government to keep their internet presence, er.., snappy?

    I know that they would like to keep their hands off but this might be an exception.
    Somehow I don't see Google or MS paying Videotron in Quebec to get "better service".
    I hope google and Friends just blackout Videotron to teach them a lesson.

    Also, what happens if I get an email from a friend that's a Videotron customer.
    did Rogers pay Videotron, yet?
    did Videotron pay Rogers, yet?
    Man this gets dumb very q
  • by oceanstream (1004835) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @06:28PM (#17926966) Homepage
    Find your MP [parl.gc.ca] and put the pressure on, please. I've already called mine (Laurie Hawn), to find his position on the debate. The rep at his office had never heard of the Net Neutrality issue. While I hope this isn't common, I wouldn't be surprised. If your MP is a Conservative, put the pressure about how damaging this will be to small businesses, startups, and our fancy new "Knowledge-based economy" idea. It may be easier to convince the Liberal or NDPs about how damaging this could be to the consumer. I urge EVERY Canadian on Slashdot to put in a courtesy call or two to their local Member of Parliament. While you're at it, contact your MLA to see if you can help pressure your provincial government as well. I'll include links:
    Alberta [electionsalberta.ab.ca]
    British Columbia [leg.bc.ca]
    Manitoba [electionsmanitoba.ca]
    New Brunswick [7700.gnb.ca]
    Newfoundland [gov.nl.ca]
    Northwest Territories [gov.nt.ca]
    Nova Scotia [gov.ns.ca]
    Nunavut Territory [assembly.nu.ca]
    Ontario [listingsca.com]
    Prince Edward Island [assembly.pe.ca]
    Quebec [gouv.qc.ca]
    Saskatchewan [legassembly.sk.ca]
    Yukon Territory [gov.yk.ca]

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle

Working...