The End of Canada's Open Internet?

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".

[7]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......

Did the CRTC Misunderstand the CAIP Throttling Case Against Bell?

PDF  [23] | Print | [24]  E-mail [25]

Why Broadband Prices Haven’t Decreased (U.S.)

So much for deregulation. Puh! 

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.

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.

LETTER START
[33]

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

Throttling Internet Makes Way for Profits? [35]

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

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?

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.

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:

Shall we still emulate them?

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?

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.

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.

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 

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.

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-...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

~ sigh ~

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. 

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.

Go 'figure' yourself.

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?

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.

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?

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.

@ 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,

That sounds like Canada versus Japan. And quite a few cities in Japan were levelled by 1945. What's our excuse?

But there are developed countries with lower population densities than Canada, have similar challenging topographical features to the landscape, and are more wired by comparison. So there goes that excuse.

The telephone grid is in place and servicing most Canadians. Very many Canadians have electrical power.

Instead of being rubberstamps of approval for telcos, Canada's federal telecom regulators could do as NTT DoCoMo in Japan was ordered to do. NTT was simply told by the feds in Japan to make it happen. And they did. No fuss no waling or foot dragging. No long and dragged out deregulation needed. They simply made it happen. Median access speeds in Japan were quite a lot more than in the US or Canada a few years ago.. And all it took was a bit of compelling by the feds.

In 2008, Richard Priestman wrote about municpalities facing a $130 billion dollar infrastructure deficit. Instead of buying $75 billion in bank-held mortgages two weeks after the election, the Harpers should have invested that money in much needed infrastructure. The City of Vancouver needs its aging sewers and water works replacing, and they didn't have the money then. I don't think internet capacity was included in deficit figures. But we can be sure that babblers thanks and DonOld could tell us how it could all be be financed.

I apparently just don't understand the technology.  I did not think that we needed to have a conduit between cities I thought that satellite technology was used.  Because while Canada is a very large country we are also one of the more urbanized countries on the planet.   So if it is coming out of a satellite in an urban area then the cost for lines into homes is no greater in Canada. 

@ kropotkin1951

Nope. If that were the case there probably wouldn't be people still using dialup in some rural areas.

And there's this:

http://www.pcmag-mideast.com/2010/04/15/internet-service-in-the-uae-affe...

Parts are DLS or coaxial, some is fibreoptic, and of course a growing amount of last mile traffic is through cell transmission. I'm not an expert in this either. But believe it or not, it doesn't come out of a magic hat.

Satellite channel cannot be used for the backbone of the internet anymore. Its bandwidth is very limited and its roundtrip delay is way too high, so it can only be used for last mile (access). Optical fiber is the current backbone of every network (telephony, Internet and Cable TV).

And if anyone has ever had a satellite internet/TV connection with Bell or whatever, they will have noticed the picture goes wonky once in a while or even cuts out in the middle of a movie or favorite TV show. Rain and snow and other atmospheric conditions can interfere with satellite signals. Satellite is expensive. And telecommunications in countries like Cuba, for instance, will improve greatly with  connecting to the rest of the world by way of under sea fiber optic cables with friendly nations like Venezuela.

Actually setting up a satellite data network across a country is probably cheaper and faster than an optical fiber network, but the speed you get with Satellite is not comparable with Fiber. Each backbone link must have the capacity to support traffic from thousands of users. A Satellite link has a capacity in the 1-10 Megabit/s range max, which is equal to one DSL line only. While a single fiber with today's technology can carry up to 160 wavelengths, each at 40 Gigabit/s, for a total capacity almost equal to one million DSL lines. There is simply no comparison.

Backhaul microwave is often a preferred method for satellite downlinks with DSL or something over local loop on the uplink. Yes, pretty cheap compared to laying new fiber across vast expanses for sure.

Satellite connections in Cuba, for example, are about four times the cost of what could be provided with fiber optic. Overall cost of telecom operations for the Cubans will be reduced by about 25% with two fiber optic links to Venezuela. In 2006 they only had a 65 Mbps connection for the whole island.

 Satellite will still be necessary for telecom to the world in Cuba, though, as it is an island nation and still dealing with an embargo-genocidal sanctions waged against them from nearby continental USA. But fiber for downlinks will speed up connections many times over and allow millions of connections in Cuba. And, it should provide for information independence for Latin America to a larger extent.

And Poor African countries should benefit from undersea fiber optic cables as well, and I think there are projects in the works in that regard.

Thx i learnt something here today

CRTC chides rogers on neutrality

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5574/125/