The End of Canada's Open Internet?

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)? 

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?... 

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.

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. 

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.

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:

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
[email protected]
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.

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.

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

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.

CRTC, are you listening?
and also.....

Throttling Internet Makes Way for Profits?

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.

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, [i]right now[/i] 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.

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.

Quote:

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

source?

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?

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?

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 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.

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.

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 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 wrote:

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

Go 'figure' yourself.

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

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,