The End of Canada's Open Internet?

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
COAnews
The End of Canada's Open Internet?

The Media democracy movement has propelled Net Neutrality from an obscure issue into a national effort to secure open and equal access to the Internet for all Canadians. NOW is the time to let the CRTC know where YOU stand on Internet freedom: http://tinyurl.com/ccg5mh

Your submissions to the CRTC will be considered in the "traffic management" hearings held later this year. Please take a few seconds to send your comments to the CRTC before the February 23rd deadline: http://tinyurl.com/ccg5mh

We must convince the CRTC to stop big telecoms from controlling our access to the Internet. Bell, Rogers and other large ISPs cannot be allowed to continue serving their own interests by "throttling" Internet traffic.

The decisions made by the CRTC will signal Canada's digital destiny. Your submission could make the difference in whether we have a closed gatekeeper Internet or open online access and innovation.

Remember that you must make your submission before Feb. 23. Please take a few seconds to tell the CRTC that you alone should
control your Internet surfing. http://tinyurl.com/ccg5mh

jacki-mo

In another vein regarding Cancon:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/588749

 

tomtoronto

tomtoronto

Thank you COAnews for the link to send a message to the CRTC. Earlier, I had thought that I would take the time to write something out myself, but when I went to the gov't's page for commenting to commissions (http://support.crtc.gc.ca/rapidscin/default.aspx?lang=en), I couldn't figure it out and make it work--I spent a lot of time and got nowhere--until I had inadequate time before the 19th deadline to do the job. Maybe I am a dodo when it comes to reading gov't webstuff, but I found that the process of making a comment to them didn't work for me.  Did anyone else have difficulty with this page (and procedure)? 

MattB

jacki-mo wrote:

In another vein regarding Cancon:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/588749

 That's really interesting reading, although yeah, I don't see how that system would function or how it could be enforced. The idea of establishing funding "by charging fees to Internet users for the creation of broadcast-quality Canadian programming" is a potential red flag, depending on what's meant by "broadcast-quality".

tomtoronto

tomtoronto  Here is a CBC link that I think speaks to the problem of the internet in Canada and the question of throttling--basically it mentions the use of fibre for the infrastructure that would make the need for throttling disappear as infrastructure would be able to more than carry the present load.  Then, if this infrastucture deficiency is seen to be the problem (rather than the high traffic) the federal (and other) governments could be approached to get into the act with funds (Harper is content to remain aloof, at the moment). Is real issue here of the internet--throttling, prioritization, monitoring of content, etc. a cover for corporation takeover of the internet that can be addressed (and possibly defeated) by activist discussion of fibre usage in the infrastructure?

Here's the link:  http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/19/google-richard-whitt.html?... 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

CRTC hearings commenced yesterday on Internet traffic management policies - the question of "throttling".

I note that one major priority is the need to provide bandwidth for internet 'gaming'. WTF???

Michelle

Well, why not?  Lots of people use the internet for gaming.  And as far as I'm concerned, if you're paying for bandwidth that you're not getting, I don't give a damn WHAT you want to use it for - they're breaching your contract.

People use the internet for all sorts of things, some serious, some work-related, and some recreational.  We shouldn't have to justify WHY we need or want the bandwidth.  It shouldn't be throttled, period.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

But why do the providers prioritize gambling over other use? They specifically justify throttling for this purpose.

And why does the CRTC accept this priority?

Snert Snert's picture

As I read it, they're referring to gaming (eg:  WoW), not specifically gambling, and their rationale is that gaming, along with VoIP, doesn't tolerate dropped packets well.  Your phone conversation gets a little stilted when your packet is at the back of the line, and/or a Third Level Elf-Mage crushes your skull with The Halberd Of Fire while you're waiting for your screen to refresh. 

Michelle

Oh sorry, I misunderstood!  I thought you were saying that they were saying we need to STOP internet throttling because it throws off gamers.  I thought perhaps their argument was along the lines that they're not just cutting off illegal file-sharing this way, but supposedly "legitimate" uses of bandwidth like gaming.

One that that ticks me off is the fact that, because of throttling and not-so "high speed" internet, I find it just about impossible to upload videos I shoot.  It takes hours, and that's only if I don't get cut off in the middle of transmission.

It's really put a damper on my efforts.  I haven't made a video in ages, because what's the point?

Snert Snert's picture

To be fair, your upstream bandwidth will always be less than your downstream.  Of course that's artificial too, and it's so that you don't start running, say, an mp3 server or something, but your upload speed isn't *necessarily* a victim of shaping.

Fidel

Upload/download speeds will eventually have to have limits due to the ever increasing sophistication of software and communications programs. What piddling bit rates Canadians and Americans are limited to now are built-in limits due to telecom broadband carriers not having invested whopping profits over the years in new infrastructure to reflect the times. They are not real limits. Capitalists tend to create false shortages when desiring to drive up prices for whatever it is theyre selling.

NDPP

Battle for Digital Democracy Moves to the Hill:

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2009/07/07/DigitalDemocracy/

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Did the CRTC Misunderstand the CAIP Throttling Case Against Bell?

PDF 
| Print |
 E-mail

Quote:
Wednesday July 08, 2009

Today's CRTC network management hearing featured some stunning discussion on the throttling of wholesale services that undoubtedly left many observers wondering whether the Commission actually understood what it was doing in the CAIP throttling complaint against Bell (CAIP has asked the Commission to reconsider the decision).  The discussion started when MTS Allstream adopted the position that dominant carriers should not be permitted to throttle or traffic shape at the wholesale level.  In other words, any traffic management practices should be limited to the ISP that interacts directly with a customer at the retail level.  MTS argued that the wholesale service (known as GAS or Gateway Access Service) is more like a private virtual network, where the ISP is purchasing capacity.  The GAS is not strictly an Internet service and MTS assured the Commission that the use of the wholesale services should not have a congestion impact on the carrier's retail Internet services.

This is relevant since the CAIP complaint involved GAS.  CAIP was concerned that Bell's throttling was being done not to relieve congestion, but rather for competitive reasons.  It believed that Bell was concerned that independent ISPs would offer retail customers non-throttled services (which ISPs like TekSavvy did), which might lead some to consumers to leave Bell (which they began to do).  Of course, this is an illustration of why competition would address many net neutrality concerns (assuming consumers can choose an alternate provider).  Yet Bell's approach was to throttle everyone's service at the retail and wholesale level, so that this form of competition would be eliminated.  And the CRTC, perhaps not even understanding the specifics of the services at issue, let them get away with it.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

A standard email response to particpants as to the where things are currently......

Quote:
All-star team to testify before CRTC to save the open Internet

Submitted by Steve Anderson on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 11:46.
Press Release: For Immediate Release July 7, 2009

On Thursday July 9, SaveOurNet.ca coalition members along with network experts will be appearing before the CRTC at the “traffic management” hearing in Gatineau, Quebec to make the case for Net Neutrality. SaveOurNet.ca is also highlighting how people and organizations are using the Internet to bring the hearing to people across the country.

SaveOurNet.ca will make its public interest presentation along with Internet experts Dr. David Reed of MIT, Dr. Andrew Odlyzko of the Minnesota Internet Traffic Studies (MINTS) project, and Bill St. Arnaud, Chief Research Officer for CANARIE Inc., Canada’s Advanced Internet Development Organization. Dr. Reed and Dr. Odlyzko who will be flying to join Bill St. Arnaud, David Fewer, Acting Director at CIPPIC, and Steve Anderson, National Coordinator of SaveOurNet.ca and Campaign for Democratic Media.

Earlier this year, a formal submission was presented to the CRTC traffic management hearing on behalf of the broad based SaveOurNet.ca coalition and all Canadians. The submission included testimony from network engineers illustrating that Internet Service Providers have no technical need to unilaterally limit access to online services and content.

Over the past six months, the CRTC has received well over 11,000 comments calling for the regulator to preserve the open Internet. The decisions made by the CRTC will signal Canada's digital path and have serious implications for privacy, innovation, security, consumer choice and creativity.

SaveOurNet.ca is encouraging people to follow the hearing at http://www.SaveOurNet.ca/hearing where there will be daily updates and postings about the ongoings of the hearing. People can also get involved via live twitter posts from CIPPIC, along with Michael Geist, and SaveOurNet.ca who will also be making twitter and blogposts about the hearing.

Key links for the hearing:
http://www.SaveOurNet.ca/hearing
http://twitter.com/cippic
http://www.michaelgeist.ca

For more information contact:

Steve Anderson
Co-founder
SaveOurNet.ca and CDM
(604) 837-5730
steve@democraticmedia.ca
http://saveournet.ca

David A. Fewer
Acting Director
CIPPIC
The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic
Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
(613)562-5800 ext. 2558
www.cippic.ca

About SaveOurNet.ca: SaveOurNet.ca is a coalition of citizens, businesses, and public interest groups fighting to protect our Internet's level playing field.

About CIPPIC: CIPPIC is the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, Canada’s only technology law clinic. CIPPIC was established in 2003 at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section. CIPPIC’s mandate is to advocate for balance in policy and law-making on issues arising out of new technologies.

About CDM: CDM is a network of public interest organizations and people pushing for media democracy in Canada.

Abbreviated bios for our network engineers:

Dr. David P. Reed
Dr. David P. Reed Currently Adjunct Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Laboratory, Dr. Reed has played a significant role in the development of the underlying architecture of the Internet, contributing to the design and development of IP, TCP, and UDP – the protocols central to today's Internet. Dr. Reed co-authored the seminal paper establishing the “end-to-end” networking principle. Along with Andrew Lippman, Dr. Reed currently heads the Viral Communications group at MIT Media Lab. He is also a founding director of the MIT Communications Futures Program. Dr. Reed is also currently an HP Fellow at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories. He has served on the Technological Advisory Council of the Federal Communications Commission.

Fidel

[url=http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/index.php/Kellogg/article/why_br... Broadband Prices Haven’t Decreased[/url] (U.S.)

Quote:
Greenstein says that a 2003 decision to leave regulation up to the broadband companies themselves has caused much of the stagnation in broadband service prices.

Adam Smith wrote:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
 

So much for deregulation. Puh! 

trippie

Come on now Fidel, you know the market is always correct?

Prices don't go up because of a conspiracy. They go up because that is the correct selling price according to science. And the science of capitalist markets is freedom and democracy.

Their numbers are like money in the bank my friend. Money in the bank.

Fidel

They just want the freedom to rob us blind is all.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Priority given to 'gaming' begins to make sense. Can't have anything interfering with government revenue streams....

thorin_bane

My dad talks about that a lot. He siad its only illegal until the government does it. He was refering to "a numbers racket" that the mobs use to run. Which today we call the 6/49..remember it illegal to have(by law) a hockey pool, but pro line is great ask don cherry,

Fidel

The feds can do it or the mafia, one or the other. Personally I think that if it has to be done, then I'd rather the feds. Depends on what they do with the profits though. Donating to charities is a good idea, which is what OLG has been doing for years. I don't think organized crime would be as charitable.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

LETTER START

Quote:
As I turn on my computer to begin this letter, I log into Windows and receive a notification that an update is available for Java. Something I’ve seen a hundred times before and never really given much thought to. But this time something else crosses my mind; how big is the update? How much data will be downloaded to my computer? I read each of the prompts that come up on my screen, a little more closely than previously, looking for some indication of file size, but I see nothing. I go ahead with the update, but not without some concern. The issue? Something as simple as a software update on my computer may actually end up costing me money........

Spectrum Spectrum's picture
thorin_bane

Yep they are now provider, producer, distribution, and gateway. WAY too much media concentration for bell. Not good and only going to get worse.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Where we could once pay a single monthly bill for our internet, we will now be paying not only the bill, but also the extra fees for having used more data than the Internet Service Providers think we should be using.

 

It's not about what a provider "thinks you should be using" any more than my hydro bill is all about how much electricity OPG thinks I should be using.

 

It's about what I've USED. How much I chose to use.

 

When the day comes that there's unlimited bandwidth I'll expect to pay a set price for that. But until then, someone tell me how it's odious for high-volume users to pay for the volume they use, rather than being subsidized by grandma who reads her e-mail twice a week? And please spare us a bunch of chin music about "what could be" -- we can deal with utopian scenarios when we get there.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Snert wrote:

 And please spare us a bunch of chin music about "what could be" -- we can deal with utopian scenarios when we get there.

All Hail the status Quo right Snert.  No point in discussing anything is there?

Please spare us your condescending attitude towards anything that requires you to think outside of the box you are imprisoned in.  

Snert Snert's picture

I don't really mind discussing "what could be", so long as we all understand that we're not there yet. 

Right now we don't have unlimited bandwidth, just as we don't have unlimited renewable energy.  So right now, I really don't see any odious evils hiding behind pay for use.  And considering that a flat fee internet, right now would mean high-volume NetFlix users being subsidized by low bandwidth users, I'm not sure why anyone else would, either.

We sure as hell wouldn't accept a flat-fee hydro service, so that suburbanites can run their three air conditioners and their 2,000 light Christmas display, subsidized by the guy in the bachelor apartment with a bar fridge.  So what makes IP traffic somehow different?  Enlighten me.

Slumberjack

Snert wrote:
We can deal with utopian scenarios when we get there.

There's little time for any of that at the moment.  We're too busy dealing with the Capitalist utopia, where they get to do whatever they want for more profit.

6079_Smith_W

WHile I think any new fees need to be done in an equitable way, and I think throttling is unfair penalizing of legal torrent use, this is not a threat to internet freedom so much as a potential cash grab.

Like it or not internet traffic is reaching the limits of current infrastructure. As in other realms, the notion that we can have limitless growth is an illusion.

But when it comes to actual freedom, I am much more concerned about the threat of ISPs turning over customer browsing information, either by agreeing to is, or by force.

Also, their compliance may not be necessary, given current technology that can pick a user's computer out of hundreds of thousands simply by reading personal settings.

 

Slumberjack

It's a total cash grab.  They certainly won't reduce anyone's monthy internet bill to zero and start from there based on usage.  More than likely, they'll maintain the same service provider/connection charge they do now, and bill upwards from there.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
Like it or not internet traffic is reaching the limits of current infrastructure.

source?

Fidel

Snert wrote:
And please spare us a bunch of chin music about "what could be" -- we can deal with utopian scenarios when we get there.

Oh you must be referring to those real countries again, like [url=http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=2688961]Fra... where they're paying $40 bucks a month for connections four times faster on average.

L'Amour Toujours L'Amour L'Amourrrr

6079_Smith_W

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:
Like it or not internet traffic is reaching the limits of current infrastructure.

source?

LTJ

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you not aware that you can only send a certain amount of information through a cable - and that the more traffic there is the slower and less reliable the connection becomes?

You might want to start here:

http://www.internettrafficreport.com/

Or is it not something we need to concern ourselves with until those numbers drop to 10 or zero?

 

Fidel

Quote:
Like it or not internet traffic is reaching the limits of current infrastructure.

Theoretically speaking, internet capacity is unlimited. It's not like electrical power where capacity for generation is finite or increasingly scarce. IOWs there are no real technical limits for the thing which they monopolize and claim needs rationing and doling out bit by bit at a high rate of profit. Translation? They don't really need to gouge us in order to put food on their tables and three or four roofs over their millionaire heads.

And their automatic rubber stamps of approval in the CRTC don't seem to know what they're talking about most of the time. And I often think it's on purpose.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Oh you must be referring to those real countries again, like France where they're paying $40 bucks a month for connections four times faster on average.

 

But we're not France, Fidel. When we are, or when our Internet infrastructure is like theirs, then I guess I'll expect what they get.

 

This was interesting though:

 

Quote:
In May 2009, a bill was approved by the French National Assembly to prevent internet piracy. After downloading illegal files three times, a user's connection might be suspended.

 

Shall we still emulate them?

 

Quote:
Theoretically speaking, internet capacity is unlimited

 

This is what I meant when I asked for some realistic responses upthread.

 

Yes, theoretically. And theoretically, solar energy could provide us with inexpensive, environmentally friendly, essentially unlimited electrical power.

 

So can I just pay $20 a month for all the power I want today? Please??

 

No? How come? Is it BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THERE YET?

Fidel

Snert wrote:

Yes, theoretically. And theoretically, solar energy could provide us with inexpensive, environmentally friendly, essentially unlimited electrical power.

There are real technical limits to the energy efficiency of solar cells.

But data transmission technologies are not limited in nearly the same way. Building out broadband capacity is technically doable, and there are real examples in real countries where it's been done and without the invisible hand baloney either.

 

Snert wrote:
So can I just pay $20 a month for all the power I want today? Please??

As we mentioned up thread, no as in n and o.

But again, electrical power and internet capacity are two difference things altogether. And we have three things that are entirely different if including utilization of energy from the sun.

Snert wrote:
No? How come? Is it BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THERE YET?

You mean Canada and Canadian telcos are not there yet. Too many Canadians are stuck in the slow lane of Canada's information uberhighway under construction, and they're taking their sweet time about things. I wonder why? France and other countries were there some time ago. Toujours L'Amour L'Amourrr Kiss

6079_Smith_W

Plus, while in theory more cable can be laid to make room for more traffic, that requires more money to pay for more labour, more materials, more energy, and ongoing maintenance.

Let me say again, that I don't doubt some companies are doing their best to make more money and unfairly gouge while they throttle and increase fees.

But the fact is there are limits and if we need to increase infrastructure to accomodate higher traffic that has to be paid for.

This might be a consumer protection issue, but there are real threats to internet freedom, access  and privacy which concern me a lot more than this.

(edit)

*just getting down an atlas to remind myself of the relative sizes of France and Canada, and where the two countries are situated WRT other countries of high population and internet usage.

 

6079_Smith_W

THis is significant though, for those who would like to blame it all on illegal downloaders (and of course, not all p2p traffic is illegal):

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2010/06/video-traffic-to-surpass-p2p-internet-...

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you not aware that you can only send a certain amount of information through a cable - and that the more traffic there is the slower and less reliable the connection becomes

No, I'm not being deliberately obtuse - why would you react in such a fashion?

You've provided no proof of your claim; I tend to dispute that there is any rising cost to expanding internet infrastructure. So far as I am aware, its provision gets ever cheaper, even as demand rises. The fact is that the "pipeline" providers would like to collect their fees without further investment. As far as I am concerned, their fees should be coming down if they are finished expansion, as we are currently being billed for expanding infrastructure.

Actually, I think this infrastructure is far too important to the nation to be left in the hands of capricious corporate pirates. Nationalize it.

thorin_bane

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Where we could once pay a single monthly bill for our internet, we will now be paying not only the bill, but also the extra fees for having used more data than the Internet Service Providers think we should be using.

 

It's not about what a provider "thinks you should be using" any more than my hydro bill is all about how much electricity OPG thinks I should be using.

 

It's about what I've USED. How much I chose to use.

 

When the day comes that there's unlimited bandwidth I'll expect to pay a set price for that. But until then, someone tell me how it's odious for high-volume users to pay for the volume they use, rather than being subsidized by grandma who reads her e-mail twice a week? And please spare us a bunch of chin music about "what could be" -- we can deal with utopian scenarios when we get there.

And you are on babble why? Oh yeah to stir the pot. The fact is oh great one, the EU, Japan, South America and even Africa have unlimited bandwidth, but I suppsoe it s too lazy for you to look it up right. Even in Canada we have unlimited. In fact I had unlimited not just with tek savvy or primus, but with bell. But they wanted to give me a faster connection but with limits on bandwidth. 8 years ago 60 gig was a lot. That is pre HD, pre Xbox 360, pre youtube, pre emails that link to the above, or even netflicks.

Netflick cuts into bells profits. Don't need sat. You use more internet(something they failed to fix despite being allowed to charge more to their phone users for the upgrades ) and now that they own CTV so its competition to their production wing.

Pretty simple when you look at it. I download games and movies legally off the net. Cinematic Titanic sends me 4.3 gig DVD files for movies. It doesn't take long for that to add up. Plus there are movies in the public domain available free online that also doesn't count as pirating. Or linux users. Sure there is pirating, why would you pay for stuff they are gouging you for constantly.

How many people use Itunes-it also is small but uses memory, I watch a lot of TV online like hockey games, power and politics. Stuff off of CTV like Daily Show, colbert report,  Power Play, rick mercer  etc. These are legal but now I have to worry about watching a movie because they are gougin us.

thorin_bane

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Plus, while in theory more cable can be laid to make room for more traffic, that requires more money to pay for more labour, more materials, more energy, and ongoing maintenance.

Let me say again, that I don't doubt some companies are doing their best to make more money and unfairly gouge while they throttle and increase fees.

But the fact is there are limits and if we need to increase infrastructure to accomodate higher traffic that has to be paid for.

This might be a consumer protection issue, but there are real threats to internet freedom, access  and privacy which concern me a lot more than this.

(edit)

*just getting down an atlas to remind myself of the relative sizes of France and Canada, and where the two countries are situated WRT other countries of high population and internet usage.

 

Maybe you missed the threads about how telus and bell were allowed to overbill their telephone users to expand the infrastructure for the internet. For one telephone and internet are not mutually exclusive. Second they never did it and are being forced to repay SOME of that money to their costomers(which they have spent tens of millions fighting in court) your cheque should be in the mail in 2 months.

The created an artificial shortage in supply all the while taking your money with the other hand to fix this problem and not doing it. Tobin quit the fed liberals because martin couldn't find 1 billion during our huge surplus years to invest in rural internet infrastructure. Back when we were leadin the world.

So no I don't buy the argument this can't be done. It wasn't done is the probelm and they are now claiming poor because they didn't do what they were regulated to do. Invest in infrastructure.

How can 3rd world countries have higher technology infrastructure on NEW tech than we do. One can argue they are starting from scratch, but they also have less money to do it with. And most of canada is in a narrow band that doesn't require an atlas. Not many telephones on our archipelagos up north.

6079_Smith_W

thorin_bane wrote:

Maybe you missed the threads about how telus and bell were allowed to overbill their telephone users to expand the infrastructure for the internet.

Um.... no. 

Maybe you missed the first sentence of my first post in this thread in which I say exactly that - that I don't like the idea of throttling and that I think this is a cash grab. 

I just think it is good to remember that there are physical limits to the system and that it doesn't all just come out of a magic hat.

More importantly, this is a consumer protection issue. There are other real threats to internet freedom and privacy; this is not very high up on the list in that regard.

 

thorin_bane

When it limits what you can use on the net it certainly is a threat to your freedoms. If I am forced to watch their sat, or use their phone(services provided over the net) land or even cell technology over the net, or wacth their regular TV shows then yes it is. Of course invasion of privacy is ongoing issue, but all things are important. If it continues many less well off will be more limited in what they can and can not use the net for. Access to the net because of price gouging becomes a rich poor issue in a hurry and gives the rich kid the edge in life. Affordable internet is probably the most important tool for kids now. Their curriculum tells them to use it. Its not like when I was growing up and PCs were a novelty that only us geeks had.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
And you are on babble why? Oh yeah to stir the pot. The fact is oh great one, the EU, Japan, South America and even Africa have unlimited bandwidth, but I suppsoe it s too lazy for you to look it up right.

 

Actually, I'm here because (oh, Irony!) anywhere other than here, I'd be considered a lefty.

 

As for "looking it up", why would I have done that? I didn't claim that no place on earth has flat fee internet.

 

Quote:
Maybe you missed the threads about how telus and bell were allowed to overbill their telephone users to expand the infrastructure for the internet.

 

Are we certain that meant "to allow unlimited bandwidth", and not, say "to expand existing broadband into small and rural areas" or something like that?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Snert wrote:

Actually, I'm here because (oh, Irony!) anywhere other than here, I'd be considered a lefty.

~ sigh ~

Really? Your neo-liberal bromides get mistaken for the quotations of Chairman Mao when you go elsewhere?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Really? Your neo-liberal bromides get mistaken for the quotations of Chairman Mao when you go elsewhere?

 

In this case, "elsewhere" would include my workplace, Free Dominion, or almost any city or town in Canada. Go figure. 

 

Quote:
Affordable internet is probably the most important tool for kids now.

 

Affordable? Or unlimited? Because one might expect that a (say) 20Gb/month plan would allow students to look up provincial capitals and such. They might have to read a book, rather than downloading the Hollywood adaptation from NetFlix, but I expect they'd get by.

 

Did you know that back in the 50's similar arguments were being made regarding television? Yup. The kids without television were going to grow up backward and unemployable! Television was the learning medium of the future! Fast forward a few decades, and some parents are now voluntarily getting rid of their TV, or sharply restricting how much time their kids are allowed to "learn" from it every day.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Snert wrote:

In this case, "elsewhere" would include my workplace, Free Dominion, or almost any city or town in Canada. Go figure.

Go 'figure' yourself.

Aristotleded24

Snert wrote:
Quote:
Affordable internet is probably the most important tool for kids now.

 

Affordable? Or unlimited? Because one might expect that a (say) 20Gb/month plan would allow students to look up provincial capitals and such. They might have to read a book, rather than downloading the Hollywood adaptation from NetFlix, but I expect they'd get by.

 

Did you know that back in the 50's similar arguments were being made regarding television? Yup. The kids without television were going to grow up backward and unemployable! Television was the learning medium of the future! Fast forward a few decades, and some parents are now voluntarily getting rid of their TV, or sharply restricting how much time their kids are allowed to "learn" from it every day.

The key difference is that TV doesn't engage viewers, it just tells you what to think. The Internet provides far more capacity for average people to express their views.

If you're arguing that as a society he have become too addicted to digital communication, I agree. I worry that many people (particularly everyone under 35) rely too much on digital communication and are challenged when it comes to communicating and building communities outside of the digital world. And certainly parents have the right to restrict how much time their children spend watching TV or playing on the Internet, I agree that it's better to sit down and read a phyisical book with your children as opposed to letting them play on the Internet, and I don't believe paper books will ever go away because I just can't see someone taking their e-reader into them for a relaxing bath. So maybe as a society we need to re-learn how to communicate in non-digital ways. That is entirely different than the companies coming in and imposing restrictions.

This also has implications for the growth of the Information Economy (and I'm surprised nobody brought this up). There has been a trend towards people working from home, either through self-employment or arrangements with their workplaces. There are many benefits to this arrangement. Putting a meter on bandwidth would have huge implications, as it could slow this trend or even reverse it. That would hurt Canada's economic competitiveness internationally. Is hampering our economic competitiveness a good idea during a recession?

Fidel

Snert wrote:

Actually, I'm here because (oh, Irony!) anywhere other than here, I'd be considered a lefty.

And you're too darned smart to be on the right, that's why.  And besides, we don't believe all those things they say about you.

Stick with us. You were born to babble.

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But the fact is there are limits and if we need to increase infrastructure to accomodate higher traffic that has to be paid for.

Canadians have been gouged on data and voice calls for years. How much of our money do they need to bring infrastructure up to par with that of other developed countries?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

*just getting down an atlas to remind myself of the relative sizes of France and Canada, and where the two countries are situated WRT other countries of high population and internet usage.

So if Canada has half the population of another country with faster internet on average, then our connections should be half as fast? One-third? What is the market rule for determining access speeds and bb penetration? I don't believe there is one. I'm guessing economists will say that anything that can be done on a small scale can be mocked-up and done large. And vice versa.

Over the next ten years, internet transmission technologies will boost today's bit rates by many times over.  FTTH or at least high speed DSL over good quality newer copper wire should be standard in all local loops across Canada by now. It's not.

6079_Smith_W

@ Fidel

Not just differences in population, in but geographic size and population density.

You said yourself that internet capacity is unlimited - with your own caveat that you were speaking theoretically. In reality the system we have right now has physical limits, and putting that infrastructure in place is a bigger job in our country than it is in smaller and more densely-populated areas.

We agree on the fact that some of these companies are ripping off customers. My point is that just saying that the system should be limitless isn't going to make those providers shell out and upgrade those systems. Until that happens the problem is probably going to get worse before it gets better, especially with movie and TV services eclipsing 2P traffic.

Of course it shouldn't be this way, but until they either decide to or are compelled to build more capacity our existing system is going to get squeezed more and more, so we aren't in a position to talk about limitless anything,

Pages