Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Canadian Regulator Says No To New Internet Regs 76

Posted by timothy from the leaving-well-enough-alone dept.
An anonymous reader writes "After months of fears that the Canadian broadcast regulator would try to regulate the Internet, the CRTC has come to its senses. Its new media decision today takes a hands off approach — no new regulation — and even adopts a rule against undue preferences for wireless providers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Regulator Says No To New Internet Regs More

Canadian Regulator Says No To New Internet Regs

Comments Filter:
  • To bad this wasn't a Europe thing. Since most of the US politicians get their "new" ideas from the EU maybe they would try to borrow this one as well.

    • I was under the impression it was the other way round - that EU countries were getting their own DMCA + cutting you off the Internet (French idea, what a suprise ;-) )

      • Except the DMCA was passed to normalize US copyright laws with those in Europe and there is no 3-strikes rule in the US.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by schon ( 31600 )

          Except the DMCA was passed to normalize US copyright laws with those in Europe and there is no 3-strikes rule in the US.

          Except that when the DMCA was enacted, it was to ratify the WIPO treaty which was being pushed by American media companies and therefore "normalization" didn't really happen, and the various 3-strikes laws being proposed are entirely new and not part of the WIPO treaty at all.

          • Except that when the DMCA was enacted, it was to ratify the WIPO treaty which was being pushed by American media companies and therefore "normalization" didn't really happen

            Those WIPO treaties were being pushed by the American media companies to normalize with the more stringent copyright laws that were passed in the EU.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by schon ( 31600 )

              Those WIPO treaties were being pushed by the American media companies to normalize with the more stringent copyright laws that were passed in the EU.

              What colour is the sky in your world?

              Name ONE country besides the US that had DMCA-like copyright provisions before 1999. Just *ONE*.

              • DMCA != Stringent copyright law (Score:1, Interesting)

                by Anonymous Coward

                There is no Fair Use for example in the UK. "Fair Dealing" isn't as extensive. Ergo, the UK law WITHOUT a DMCA law enacted was more strict than the US.

  • Now the US ISPs and Wireless Telcos will (Score:3, Funny)

    by Amazing Quantum Man ( 458715 ) on Thursday June 04, 2009 @05:15PM (#28215063) Homepage

    Blame Canada!

  • No regulation? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr.Fork ( 633378 ) <edward@j@reddy.gmail@com> on Thursday June 04, 2009 @05:20PM (#28215135) Journal
    As a canuck, sure, the CRTC hands-off approach makes sense, but it still doesn't help address internet throttling by ISP which I think is shoddy. If I pay for a service, and wish to use a technology to download a game patch like Torrent, my ISP WILL throttle my internet connection.

    However, no regulation still means NO regulation which isn't a bad thing. And I do have the ability to switch service providers as a consumer and inquire about throttling before I move.

    • The problem, and what I believe is still before the CRTC is that ALL internet is Throttled.

      Basically all internet is provided by two companies: Bell, and Rogers Communication. Phone and Cable respectively.

      Independent ISPs buy their service from one or the other.

      The Independents complained to the CRTC that this was an unfair buisness practice by Bell, that they are slowing their users connection. Bell's argument is that its is a fair playing ground because they treat their own customers like crap, and if the

  • Canada and Mexico should agree on regs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Thursday June 04, 2009 @05:55PM (#28215565) Homepage Journal

    I think Canada and Mexico should agree on the new regulations and then force the US to comply with them under NAFTA.

    And restore copyright to the original 17 years with renewals until the literal person (not corporation) dies and no renewals after that.

    Canada has twice the bandwidth at half the price we suckers in the USA pay for.

    • Canada has twice the bandwidth at half the price we suckers in the USA pay for.

      Some of that has to do with the fact that we adopted the tech a generation earlier than Canada... and then we forgot^H^H^H^H^H^H ran away with the cash we were supposed to use to upgrade with.

    • I think Canada and Mexico should agree on the new regulations and then force the US to comply with them under NAFTA.

      So you want the **AA to lobby their Canadian and Mexican counterparts to pressure their respective governments into complying with their demands?

      There's already a word for that: harmonization.
      Get a shitty law passed overseas and then "harmonize" your laws with the foreign one.

      I guess what I'm really saying is that there's no reason to believe that Canada or Mexico will behave in a way that aligns with y/our interests over those of the media industries.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jpedlow ( 1154099 )

      p>Canada has twice the bandwidth at half the price we suckers in the USA pay for.

      I've spotted a crazyperson!... The USA is the land of the $50 (or less, i mean, cogent's $4) megabit/sec. Up here, I pay $142/megabit, without any bandwidth factored In. I spend nearly 2 grand a month on a 10 meg line, with 250gigs of transfer. I'm trying to make a small DC up in BC, and it's brutal, there's no way we can even dream of competing with US prices, not because of the dollar factor, but just because you guys get data for so rediculously cheep. And then there's cellphones! You guys can get unlim

      • You don't live in Canada you live out west.... Canada is located in southern Ontario.
        • LOL. Or maybe he's one of those freaks in the maritimes.

          Anyway, I've got a new signature.

          • Hey Ontario, Newfoundland called. They want their jokes back!

            So hows that whole GM thing working out for you? EI eh? Lazy buggers! I hear no one has jobs there. Talk funny too! Well anyhoo, off to the oil to work smell ya later!

      • Hold on, are you talking about consumer internet? Because that's what I assumed the GP was talking about, and I'm paying about $50+tax/month for 10 Mbps (1.2 MB/s) with 60 GB transfer.

        You're right about cellphone and dataplan rates sucking ass though. Add to that a *3 year* contract, that was enough to make me pass on the latest and greatest smartphones.

      • You guys can get unlimited phone/data lines, for less than a hundred a month, we get 4 gigs of data and 200 minutes for $85 a month. No unlimited anything.

        Try Telus. The only cell carrier in Canada I found that has an unlimited data plan. It was about $40. Bell and Rogers can suck my left nut.

    • LOL HA! Like the US has always complied with NAFTA?

      NAFTA is only accepted by the US when it is convenient to do so. They will do whatever they bloody well want.

  • Admittedly, I haven't been putting this issue under a microscope. But, I had the distinct impression that it wasn't the CRTC that was attempting regulation, but rather the politicians that were trying to push that through. History supports this as the CRTC has always been reasonable (with few exceptions) overall.

    So, in reality, what this more than likely was, was a bunch of corps/etc and politicians trying to do something unreasonable. Then the CRTC went and looked into it (because they would have to) an

  • Is this a good or a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Arancaytar ( 966377 ) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Thursday June 04, 2009 @07:57PM (#28216847) Homepage

    Don't we *want* regulation in order to ensure net neutrality?

    Who are we rooting for right now?

    • We want net neutrailty, but the general consensus amongst those pushing for it is that regulation is bad because it can be abused... what I see happening is that net neutrality will be sort of forced onto the networks by setting up systems specifically designed to mask the data such that traffic shaping and DPI techs are rendered useless. It will be nice because net neutrality will be in place, but it will suck because you wont just be paying your ISP for access and going.

      • And because ISPs will retaliate by promising "unlimited" plans, and then cutting you off if it turns out to be unprofitable for them. Even if they can't shape the traffic, they can still throttle the bandwidth to their own users.

        ISP: "It's a bit more expensive, but you get all the bandwidth in the world."
        Customer: "Sweet, now to BitTorrent..."
        ISP: "Whoops, we didn't think you'd use all that much. Goodbye!"
        Customer: "Breach of contract!"
        ISP: "Haha, sue us. See if you can afford a lawyer."

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close