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
In another vein regarding Cancon:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/588749
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)?
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 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?ref=rss
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???
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Battle for Digital Democracy Moves to the Hill:
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2009/07/07/DigitalDemocracy/
A standard email response to particpants as to the where things are currently......
Quote:
Why Broadband Prices Haven’t Decreased (U.S.)
So much for deregulation. Puh!
They just want the freedom to rob us blind is all.
Priority given to 'gaming' begins to make sense. Can't have anything interfering with government revenue streams....
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,
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.
Yep they are now provider, producer, distribution, and gateway. WAY too much media concentration for bell. Not good and only going to get worse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
L'Amour Toujours L'Amour L'Amourrrr