Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
The Internet Government Politics Your Rights Online

Liberal Party of Canada Comes Out In Support of Net Neutrality 142

Posted by Soulskill
from the free-tubes-eh dept.
bryxal writes "The Liberal Party of Canada, currently leading in most polls, has announced yesterday that it supports Net Neutrality, saying, 'Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour, nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications. We must protect the openness and freedom of the internet, and maintain competition to spur innovation, improve service levels and reduce costs to users.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Liberal Party of Canada Comes Out In Support of Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by moon3 (1530265) on Saturday June 20 2009, @02:23AM (#28399673)
    Skype is actively blocked here in EU by many ISPs, because some big telcos and their ISP branches decided that Skype is eating too much into their pie. Skype is notorious low bandwidth app so claims of bandwidth concerns etc. are ill-founded. Canada is showing some sense and those EU drones in Brussels should do something, a constitutional amendment perhaps ?
  • by ModernGeek (601932) on Saturday June 20 2009, @02:53AM (#28399787) Homepage
    I wonder who gets to decide what a "Legitimate Software Application" is?
  • Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DirtyCanuck (1529753) on Saturday June 20 2009, @02:54AM (#28399793)

    I am glad that you brought up mandatory minimums. It would appear as though they have the summer to mull over the bill.

    Alberta's law against sane education and basically the whole state of affairs up here is certainly a cause for election.

    After the liberal vote on mandatory minimums it would appear that the only party supporting legalization is the NDP.

    However, unfortunately step 1 is getting the conservatives out of power.

  • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Saturday June 20 2009, @04:21AM (#28400111) Homepage Journal
    Same here in Australia. One new Government created a distinction between "core promises" and "non-core promises". Simple as that.
  • by JohnBlueMO (1403531) on Saturday June 20 2009, @09:27AM (#28401257)
    Having had my nose pushed into actual regulatory politics over the last seven years, I'd like to add a cautionary note.

    Don't be surprised that the first truly large forms of Internet censorship on a large scale occur because of net neutrality legislation. Ironic.

    Right now, the government is not responsible for Internet content to any real extent. A net neutrality law essentially says 'Government, you make things right about that content stuff'. At first, this will be a good thing. "No censorship" it will say. But then, the politics show their true form. Someone will say, "you can't censor child porn because of net neutrality laws". The conservatives will push through an exception that forces censorship of child porn. Think of the children. Someone will say, "you can't censor pro-tobacco messages to children because of net neutrality laws". The liberals will push through an exception to censor tobacco messages. Think of the children. Then the next thing. Then the next. The government will, over time, take it to levels that today's QOS policy for VOIP look like innocent play.

    Sorry to be pessimistic, but it opens a Pandora's box. Governments love laws. Lobbyists love laws. So, the question I ask myself is: is the net neutrality problem today better or worse than the net neutrality problem we would get with a law? Hard to predict. I suspect that things are not bad enough yet to make a law a good idea.

Space is to place as eternity is to time. -- Joseph Joubert

Working...