Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Net Neutrality Bill Introduced In Canadian Parliament

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the aboot-time dept.

Networking 132

FeatherBoa points out that the New Democratic Party in Canada has introduced legislation to limit the amount of control Canadian ISPs can exert over their subscribers. The bill would amend the Telecommunications Act to "prohibit network operators from engaging in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership or destination, subject to certain exceptions." Support for net neutrality in Canada has been building for quite a while now. Quoting CBC News: "'This bill is about fairness to consumers,' said Charlie Angus, the NDP's digital spokesman. It also looks to prohibit 'network operators from preventing a user from attaching any device to their network and requires network operators to make information about the user's access to the internet available to the user.' The proposed bill makes exception for ISPs to manage traffic in reasonable cases, Angus said, such as providing stable speeds for applications such as gaming or video conferencing."

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmm... (0, Redundant)

slapys (993739) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596575)

Sounds like a good idea.

Re:Hmm... (1)

oloron (1092167) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596633)

this is an excellent idea in the face of other proposed legislation on the table a la ACTA

Re:Hmm... (4, Interesting)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597263)

well, I think that a better idea is to mandate the declaration of the shaping in place on the connection. What if I want an isp that prioritize my voip traffic?

Re:Hmm... (2, Interesting)

Jane_Dozey (759010) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597959)

Would that not fall under the whole reasonable exception part? Looks to me like the bill allows for QoS and so your VoIP connection could reasonably be prioritised. IANAL though so please correct me if I'm wrong

Re:Hmm... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23598309)

What if I want an isp that prioritize my voip traffic?


Then they should offer you a router that has that functionality. Or, they can have a recommended list of routers where they'll offer support on how to configure it to do QoS.

I don't mind if my ISPs (in Canada) "manages" my bandwidth as long as they do it in aggregate.

If one person in the house is downloading a Linux ISO, another is streaming video, and a third is gaming, and we're affecting the bandwidth upstream, then the external IP of my router should throttled or RED-enabled; the ISP shouldn't be able to pick out one stream of data and only throttled that. Once my connection is throttled, it is the business of the household to decide who has to stop what they're doing and who gets to continue: I don't want the ISP deciding for me what's important and what's not.

I think this is what heart of net neutrality is about: the ISP can manage the bandwidth of a customer's connection, but they have to do in aggregate, and shouldn't get to choose what is important and what is not. They can say "if you're using more than X KB/s in this time period for more than Y period, we will throttle", and the user can choose what application to use (whether it's gaming, video, BitTorrent, etc.).

Re:Hmm... (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23599183)

Very well put.

I would add that they need to let their customers know what the thresholds are, so we can monitor our own use to avoid being throttled.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Cairnarvon (901868) | more than 6 years ago | (#23602125)

Despite the FUD a lot of ISPs seem to be spreading around, net neutrality still doesn't have anything to do with QoS.

Re:Hmm... (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597759)

They've only just introduced legislation; basically it is like proposing a law. Doesn't mean squat!

The obvious question follows, (4, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596587)

Just what are these "certain exceptions"? The very fact there are exceptions, even if they aren't related to freedoms now, should be a little worrying, since the exceptions can probably be added to.

Re:The obvious question follows, (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23596663)

On the other hand, the two exceptions listed in the summary make it pretty clear that straight up net neutrality isn't the best idea. Different services have different QoS requirements, and defining which ones are ok to support by law hinders future innovation.

Re:The obvious question follows, (2, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598649)

On the other hand, the two exceptions listed in the summary make it pretty clear that straight up net neutrality isn't the best idea. Different services have different QoS requirements, and defining which ones are ok to support by law hinders future innovation.

Wrong. It simply makes it neccessary to tailor these future innovations to fit the Internet - that is, to the already-used programs - rather than require that the Internet conforms to them. Furthermore, if you Irene ISP leases a 10 megabit/second connection to Pete P2P and also leases a 10 megabit/second connection to Ted Teleconference, and is unable to deliver the latter when Pete actually uses his connection... well, I guess Irene is a shameless fraudster and should go to jail, or at the very least be forced to return Pete's and Ted's money.

Opposing strict Net Neutrality because it disallows QoS is simply another way of saying that it's okay for Irene to sell nonexistent bandwidth and accuse her customers of being "unreasonable" or "abusive" when they actually try to collect what they bought. Supporting Net Neutrality is demanding that ISPs actually deliver what they promise.

And "innovation", as used by you, is nothing but a weasel word: some unspecified future application might require lots of bandwidth and low latency, so laws must be built to support that particular application at the expense of current customers.

Re:The obvious question follows, (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598759)

Precisely. I would also support a bill that allows companies to shape traffic as much as they like so long as they are required, via the bill, to make customers aware of this fact before money exchanges hands.

I am all about a free and open Internet and I'm also all about consumer rights. I am also about business rights. I know there is a lot of conflict of interest between commercial entities and "the people" but on a fundamental level business exists by the people with the function of serving the people. This "business vs. the people" attitude is a little sad. Not surprising given how certain businesses have abused market place dominance and tried to cover up mistakes or misdeeds in the name of making money, but we are all essentially one. So while consumer protection is a noble cause and quite necessary in certain areas, I don't like to see bills that blindly squash a myriad of business rights solely in the name of human rights. The trap is that we fall into this mindset where we unnecessarily hamper business in the name of good and it can be no different than overly restrictive laws that are in the name of "think of the children". For me it basically boils down to something similar to a doctor's Hippocratic oath, "thou shall do no harm". As long as the public is free and unharmed then business should be free and unharmed.

With regards to net neutrality I don't like the idea that a big telecom could shape traffic and give priority to certain entities and feed us ads with no ability for the consumers to exercise choice (or in some cases even be aware of the fact), but I also don't like the idea of telling a business what they can or can't do with their own equipment. There is a happy medium here where we can have a free and open Internet but business rights can be satisfied as well. I don't have any answers and in the end I support any kind of net neutrality legislation that ensures a free and open Internet. I just think we need to be careful and not go too far in one direction unless it's absolutely necessary.

Re:The obvious question follows, (1)

Touvan (868256) | more than 6 years ago | (#23600161)

I don't think there is a need for exceptions. It's monumentally easier (and probably cheaper) to just increase bandwidth across the board (over time), and decrease latency (over time) across the board.

I see no need to shape traffic in any way. Any current technology will work fine within current constraints, and future technology will be build to take advantage of the constraints of their time (which would improve).

This all misses the real issue anyway - the guys who own the highways also want to use those highways to sell their own product and the product of partners (and why not give their own product priority). That conflict of interest is really where the problem lies.

Re:The obvious question follows, (1)

FingerSoup (928761) | more than 6 years ago | (#23602915)

Laying Cable takes time. It is very expensive and often a time consuming process and usually requires permits to dig, etc, and can get tied up in red tape for a long time. Likewise, routing hardware can be pretty expensive for systems handling ISP-sized loads. If an area has unexpected growth, or is rezoned after the cables are laid, and the permits to lay new cable to upgrade an area don't come fast enough, then how are ISP's supposed to deal with that growth?

The process of throttling traffic is not evil, or wrong. Even throttling specific traffic such as BitTorrent is not evil, providing it can be proven to be the cause of congestion. The evil is Arbitrary, constant and/or preemptive throttling. If an area gets congested, ISP's, like any business' network, should be allowed to shape their traffic, provided said traffic shaping is only a temporary measure, and provided the company can prove that upgrading the system is being done in a reasonable time frame, given the situation at hand for that area.

The unfortunate fact is, sometimes 100 customers in one area don't use one tenth the bandwidth as 100 customers in another area. Sometimes these higher bandwidth areas can't be predicted before the area is populated. Congestion happens on any network, and affects ALL traffic - It can make the internet as a whole unusable, due to only one service causing the congestion. So if there is ONE type of traffic that is causing all the congestion, and slowing it will make the internet useable for everything and everyone else, then it's a fair trade, provided the company in question has plans to upgrade that area. The other option is to add strict bandwidth limits, and cut service once you go over them. Personally, I'd rather have slow downloads for a bit, with working internet for e-mail, web surfing, etc, than to have full speed internet, across the board for the first 15 days of the month...

Re:The obvious question follows, (1)

elnico (1290430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596683)

If they seriously wanted to erode away at the people's rights through these bogeyman "exceptions", why would they have introduced this bill in the first place?

Re:The obvious question follows, (2, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596721)

To make it look like they are "doing good for the people"

There may not be many amendments now, but they could easily already have ones in queue.

"W00t great idea" now, 3 years from now "damnit, turns out that was a shitty idea"

Re:The obvious question follows, (2, Insightful)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598181)

This is the NPD, not the US Republican Party. Unbelievable, maybe, to a jaded American, but some politicians do actually have the best interests of the public and of their voters in mind.

Exceptions are a necessary part of any rule. Absolutes are (almost) never a good idea. Any amendments to the exceptions would have to go through the parliamentary process, just as this law will have to go through, just as an abrogation of this law might eventually go through.

Re:The obvious question follows, (1)

pcameron41 (530230) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598875)

This is the NPD, not the US Republican Party.
I agree, they most likely have the best intentions. However, being the NDP, there is very little chance that they will be able to get this bill passed before they go shrieking on about some other issue. Seriously, has Jack Layton ever managed to get anything passed?

Re:The obvious question follows, (1)

A Pancake (1147663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23599513)

I guess I must be a jaded Canadian because when I hear "NDP" the last thing I think of is th peoples best interests.

Re:The obvious question follows, (1)

FingerSoup (928761) | more than 6 years ago | (#23603013)

The NDP ALWAYS has the best interests of the people in mind on every individual bill they introduce. The problem is they don't have their other bills in mind, or have any idea on what is required to implement those bills, and as a result, the people go broke, and/or their new laws end up failing once passed.

Competence should not be mistaken for how much someone cares. If the NDP had Competence, I'd probably vote for them.

Re:The obvious question follows, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23599151)

The 'obvious question' is how would this NDP private members bill that is doomed to be nothing more than a curiosity, make any difference to anything. Was this a slow news day? The NDP are nothing more than an outdated experimental political system used to express the social conscience of the sub average Canadian and a platform for any wacko social engineering cultists consisting of 2 or more people (or one), that are employed in the poverty industry. This NDP bill is hardly an expression of the concerns of the poor and average Joe as is often sadly the case.

Paper Tiger (4, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596589)

...subject to certain exceptions.
Doesn't this one line pretty much negate most of the positive potential in this bill?

Re:Paper Tiger (4, Insightful)

elnico (1290430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596667)

The proposed bill makes exception for ISPs to manage traffic in reasonable cases
Doesn't this one word pretty much negate your needless cynicism?

The point of the bill is to ensure that network flow happens in whatever way is most beneficial to the people instead of whatever way makes the most money for the ISP. Do you seriously think that there is no case in which the population experiences a gain from carefully exercised traffic shaping?

Re:Paper Tiger (0)

m0rph3us0 (549631) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596769)

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place. If thinking about the "people" really worked Soviet Russia would have been an awesome place to live. What this bill does is make the service more beneficial to SOME PEOPLE and less beneficial to others. The thing is that service providers and their customer are much better able to agree on reasonable terms than the gov't is to dictate terms of agreements for everyone. If I want my packets to get somewhere ahead of other peoples packets I should be able to pay to make it so. This is why some people send letters USPS and some use FedEx. Just wait til you get past the good intentions of net neutrality to the bad results. Of course this piece of regulation will be different than all the others.

Re:Paper Tiger (5, Insightful)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596839)

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place.
[Citation Needed] Sorry but I'm wanting you to actually give some examples. I can cite all sorts of things that the free market has done at great profit that have not been of benefit to the people until the government got involved such as, oh, construction, coal mining, food preparation, etc...

Re:Paper Tiger (1)

Swizec (978239) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597115)

Because we don't need food, coal or buildings? I'm sorry, how were any of those ever not good for the people? Perhaps not for the people working in/on those, but I can hardly imagine how the consumers didn't benefit from them.

Re:Paper Tiger (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597823)

You remind me of a song by Jethro Tull, a very long song, it lasted for both side of the Album . The Title seems to escape me just now ....

Re:Paper Tiger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23601597)

"You remind me of a song by Jethro Tull, a very long song, it lasted for both side of the Album . The Title seems to escape me just now ...."

Thick as a Brick ...

When to regulate (3, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598555)

I can cite all sorts of things that the free market has done at great profit that have not been of benefit to the people until the government got involved such as, oh, construction, coal mining, food preparation, etc...

These regulations' only justification was the inherent inflexibility of the particular markets. If a consumer dies from food poisoning, he will not be able to switch to a different supplier. If a building collapses, (most of) its occupants will not be able to opt for a better builder next time. This provides some justification to government's preemptive interference in some cases.

Internet Service Provision is vastly different. A dissatisfied customer remains perfectly healthy and is able to switch to a competitor very quickly. Ensuring availability of wide variety of such competitors is what government should concentrate on.

Instead, we may well get saddled with very few very big ISPs, who will negotiate a (near) monopoly (a'la AT&T) from the government in exchange for the on-paper adherence to various regulations, which may be too cumbersome to pass through as laws ("net-neutrality", porn-filtering, cooperation on eavesdropping, etc.). The companies will then, inevitably, outsmart the regulators making the rest of us (far) worse off.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather just switch ISPs, than file complaints with government bureaucrats... Free market is usually the best regulator.

Re:When to regulate (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23602305)

The problem here is that with a network, someone ultimately has to control the hardware; all ISPs just peer on that hardware. This bill is following the blowup followed on /. where Bell Canada (who owns the physical lines) was shaping the traffic going to their peering partners and client ISPs.

If you have no regulations, the company holding the physical goods will always be able to squeeze the competition out of the data moving business. That means that in the end, competition boils down to Telco owner vs Cable owner vs Satellite owner. Everyone else has to peer with one of these networks at some point. Satellite actually depends on Telco for the upstream, so it's really just two companies competing: in eastern Canada, that's Bell and Rogers, both of whom have been outed for their traffic shaping/restricting policies recently.

Since both companies realize that they can be more profitable by coming to the unspoken understanding that they will shape traffic to maximize their return (no collusion necessary), regulation is needed to prevent this.

Re:When to regulate (1)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23603005)

Please allow me to be reasonably free with my response.

First, if you will allow me, I'd like to state that it is my opinion that broadband (just the FCC defined rules) should be a utility and, as such, both controlled and allowed free-market (with limitations such as preventing monopolistic abuses) access.

That being said, and thank you for allowing me the freedom for the above opinions, there are still many areas where one cannot effectively move to a different Internet Service Provider.

In the area I am currently residing there are three options, out of which only one is realistic. The first is our local exchange provider who's now grown to buy out Verizon's service but we weren't ever serviced by Verizon here. That is a DSL option and that's the only realistic option. There is no cable provider here.

We then have the option of two satellite internet providers, both of them have latency issues and issues in extreme weather conditions. Here in Maine that is far more common than one might think. They both are quite expensive and they both have large start-up costs. This makes them prohibitively expensive for a good portion of the older fixed-income citizens that live in the area. The service conditions make it unacceptable for my needs - many of which are business related.

Of course there is also the option for dialup for which we have many choices for our service providers. Unfortunately that's not a realistic option and while dialup is just fine for what is now probably the minority that's akin to saying that in today's society it is fine for people to have to walk 2 miles to the communal well for water.

Simply put you, in your situation, are likely capable of switching providers but it is still (unfortunately) a rarity to find more than a couple of providers in a single area and, in places like my own, there exists but one provider. So, while idyllic and looking good in theory it doesn't pass the reality test from what I'm seeing. It isn't that I disagree with you - it is just that I'm not seeing what you're objective is as being even close to a current reality for a sizable portion of the population.

Mind you, I haven't any rational solutions that meet my ideals either. I oppose government regulations as much as the next person as a matter of principle but the idea that the free market is a solution for all just doesn't hold water in this case in my humble opinion. If anything I'd propose that the government mandate reasonable cost solutions and insist that area service providers provide broadband services at said reasonable costs.

Re:Paper Tiger (5, Insightful)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596877)

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place.

Most "backbone" ISPs around the world are former government monopolies that have been privatised. They are still reaping the benefits of being a former legally-mandated monopoly.

If there was any real competition in the expensive telecommunications infrastructure market, then net neutrality wouldn't be an issue. Until there is, we need this.

Counter Example (3, Interesting)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597029)

The UK rail system. It is universally acknowledged that privatization was a disaster just to make the fat cats fatter.

Re:Counter Example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23597785)

I think you and your parent are both on the same wavelength on this issue: there's no point talking up the benefits of privatisation to customers in a blatantly non-free market. (Ex-)Government organisations like telcos or railway companies often have large amounts of government-supplied infrastructure that makes them an effective monopoly, because the barrier to entry for potential competitors (to build an equivalent set of infrastructure) is prohibitively high. Privatising the infrastructure company won't lead to a free market with actual competition - all you're doing is substituting one uncompetitive large organisation for another, and the privatised one doesn't even need to try to be "good for the people".

MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23597079)

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place. If thinking about the "people" really worked Soviet Russia would have been an awesome place to live.
Whoa whoa whoa! Feel free to be an anarchocapitalist if you want to, but don't you think there's a bit of a difference between Canada and the Soviet Union?

You're putting up a strawman in the form of a false dichotomy here. How did this drivel get modded up?

Re:Paper Tiger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23597449)

"Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place."

I can't begin to describe how wrong this is and how blatantly it flies in the face of history. How old are you and have you ever read a book?

Re:Paper Tiger (5, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597717)

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place.

You know, I could make a ton of money if I wanted to - just stand in a busy shopping street with a handgun and demand money from passers-by. Anyone causes trouble, I could just shoot them. It's just the governments unwarranted interference with a free market that stops me. If they didn't make murder, robbery and extortion illegal, then I could clean up.

That's the trouble with taking free market politics too religiously. You need a certain amount of government interference to establish the marketplace in the first place. Otherwise, the guys with the biggest clubs and the flimsiest morals just go around raping everyone they meet, and then boast about it in interviews with Fortune magazine.

Of course this piece of regulation will be different than all the others.

I think every piece of regulation is different from all the others. We have weights and measures laws, because merchants used to routinely cheat their customers, boosting their short term finances to the detriment of the economic system as a whole We have regulations about what you can put in foodstuffs, because unscrupulous vendors have shown a willingness to boost their profit by using ingredients that are addictive, toxic, or both.

It seems a dangerous oversimplification to say that all government regulation is harmful, just as it seems equally foolish to claim that regulation is always beneficial. I think we have to consider each proposal on its merits.

Re:Paper Tiger (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 6 years ago | (#23602789)

Your argument is entirely based on the unstated assumption that only the government can provide defensive services. Naturally some defense is required against those who would employ coercion, but the government doesn't have to get involved. In fact, the government cannot supply comprehensive defensive services for the simple reason that any government, by its very nature, must itself employ coercion against those it claims to protect.

Libertarianism is not the same as pacifism. Self-defense and defensive security organizations are an essential part of any free society. Turning to government, however, is a case of destroying the foundations of civil society in an effort to save it. There are perfectly viable alternatives which do not involve systematic endorsement of the very coercion we're attempting to counter.

Re:Paper Tiger (3, Insightful)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598217)

Generally, whatever makes the most money is most beneficial to the people when there is no gov't interference in the market place.
If you enjoy living in a cesspool of pollution, getting 10cents for an 85 hour-week, you're welcome to it, but not in my country.

Has the brainwashing gone so deep? Libertarians are the worst kind of corporate-enslaved drones, because they have somehow been convinced being ruled by oligarchic, greed-driven, psychopathic organizations is a good thing.

Re:Paper Tiger (-1, Troll)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596975)

I said pretty much the same thing, earlier, and was modded troll for it. What the fuck?

When asked for comments, (4, Funny)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596593)

Several celebrities came out in favour of the ammendment, stating that they were "excited, because their online content would now deliver all this new internet money". Other celebrities were not as elated about this bill, arguing that "You're not my buddy, guy".

Re:When asked for comments, (1)

yamiyasha (1119417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596801)

Several celebrities came out in favour of the ammendment, stating that they were "excited, because their online content would now deliver all this new internet money". Other celebrities were not as elated about this bill, arguing that "You're not my buddy, guy".
Your not my Guy, Friend

Re:When asked for comments, (0, Redundant)

IversenX (713302) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597237)

Your not my Guy, Friend
You're not my Friend, Buddy!

Great step in the right direction (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596599)

But as always in law, what is "reasonable", and who exactly is the honest and reasonable person? More to the point are either usually ISP's or politicians, and how about their lawyers?

Canadians only support net neutrality... (3, Funny)

Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596629)

because they think it's an ice-hockey term (Sorry MetaMystics).

Re:Canadians only support net neutrality... (2, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596727)

Even if that were the case, it's means to an end.

If people supported a cure for HIV because they thought it helped the production of honey, would it matter?

Re:Canadians only support net neutrality... (3, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596885)

Yes. Motive always matters at some level.

Re:Canadians only support net neutrality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23599031)

Not that we would call it _ice_ hockey.

Re:Canadians only support net neutrality... (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23600091)

And we certainly wouldn't hyphenate it if we did.

the state of things (5, Insightful)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596645)

Disclaimer: I'm a card-carrying NDP member.

Now on to things...

I was at the TekSavvy Net Neutrality rally in Ottawa on May 27th. While it was a great rally, we found ourselves competing against a parliamentary sex scandal for press coverage. Sex sells. Arcane concepts like net traffic throttling don't, so much.

Let's look at reality. Customers of most ISPs in Canada are now traffic-shaped, with a few exceptions:

Videotron[Cable] (which substitutes shaping for a 50GB usage cap on a 50Mbps/1Mbps Docsis2.0 connection)
Telus[DSL]
A few ISPs such as Primus[DSL-wholesaler] and Colba[DSL-wholesaler] with their own equipment in Bell DSLAMS

There's a workaround to bypass Bell's throttling using MLPPP, only for subscribers to TekSavvy[DSL-wholesaler], but it requires some Linux-savvy or a modded router. To their credit, I believe Acanac[DSL-wholesaler] has set up an ssh tunnel for the same effect.

Otherwise, Bell[DSL] and Rogers[Cable] both shape encrypted traffic on their networks.

I see a lot of opposition for Net Neutrality regulations from people concerned about their impact on VOIP and such. Well, that's what exceptions in the law are for! Good on the NDP for finally stepping up to bat on this issue. That makes them the only party in parliament who can be bothered to take notice.

To anyone still opposed: Look at the massive, pervasive presence of the Internet in people's everyday lives, especially those under 30. It's about time we started treating it as an essential service. It's become one. Essential services (generally) have their quality regulated by government, and this bill is a step in the right direction.

Let's face facts. Canada is falling behind in the quality and penetration of broadband service. It's time to force the greedy telcos to invest in infrastructure instead of trying to save money by throttling their users and degrading the network for everyone!

Re:the state of things (1, Interesting)

Ogemaniac (841129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597621)

I hate net neutrality. Not only in principle, but in practice. I WANT my neighbor's porn-and-bittorrent diet throttled, so that when I use our shared resource (our local chunk of bandwidth), it actually works. "Net neutrality" is just a cry for the bandwidth hogs to screw it up for the rest of us.

Re:the state of things (5, Insightful)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597667)

If the service was sold to your neighbour as being unlimited, then he should be able to use it in any way he wishes. It's not your neighbours fault for using the service he paid for, it's the ISPs fault for not providing you the service you paid for. If they are overselling lines, which they are because every ISP does it, then ISPs are gambling on the fact that 90% of their subscribers only browse a few pages and use email.

Re:the state of things (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598123)

There is no such thing as a bandwidth hog with an unlimited plan.

If I pay for it, it's not my fault anymore. It's the overselling telco's.

Re:the state of things (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598173)

You clearly have no understanding of what net neutrality entails, so please stop talking about it.

First of all, the concept of 'shared resources' between you and your neighbour is a matter for your SLA with your ISP. If they sell you a certain amount of access and they can't provide it because of your neighbour then this is between you and them, and you should probably be advocating that they start charging for total data transferred as many ISPs do. Then, if your neighbour wants to pay a lot more than you, then he can use a lot more of your 'shared resource'. Mind you, if you are living somewhere where one person can make such a noticeable difference then perhaps you should be more interested in network upgrades, something non-neutral network advocates are interested in avoiding.

Secondly, QoS is nothing to do with network neutrality. Every pipe makes bandwidth versus latency trades. If your neighbour is using a lot of bandwidth then his latency will go up because your packets will have a higher priority. This is nothing to do with network neutrality either.

Network neutrality is about preventing traffic shaping based on endpoints. Preventing your ISP from prioritising your traffic if it goes to one online music store or news outlet and silently dropping packets and increasing latency if it goes to another one. If you're really happy that your ISP could enter into a partnership with MSN to make their search page load in a second and Google's load in 10 seconds or time out, then that's fine, and you are entitled to your opinion. If you're not, then please shut up about how great a non-neutral network is.

Re:the state of things (2, Insightful)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598635)

Net neutrality isn't just about how much bandwidth the guy down the street is using, it's about control over the content providers as well as the consumers. throttling traffic from p2p clients is just low-hanging fruit. If Bell (for example) gets away with shaping p2p traffic, next they'll claim that VoIP traffic is clogging their tubes, and start to throttle that. Note that VoIP is a direct competitor to Bell's land-line and long distance offerings.

Similarly, cable companies may decide to throttle traffic from any site providing streaming video, whether it's legitimate or not. Is it fair that your cable company should be able to throttle NBC? Youtube? AppleTV?

If you allow shaping of one type of traffic, everything becomes fair game. Not having enforceable Net Neutrailty is leaving not just consumers, but all Internet content producers, completely vulnerable to coercion by the major ISPs.

Re:the state of things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23600305)

And what happens when Bell decides that you should watch video from the Bell Store and CTV online smoothly and unthrottled. And then the video you might want to watch from CBC, BBC, Joost, CNN, or whatever, runs not quite so well.

Maybe since we have only one or two major corporations feeding us newspapers and radio, then that's how the Internet should be fed to us as well?

Re:the state of things (1)

Nuitari The Wiz (1123889) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597949)

Colba net only has their DSLAMs for ADSL2, not normal ADSL.

And the geographic coverage isn't that great for ADSL2 in Montreal (where Colba is).

Re:the state of things (0, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598609)

Disclaimer: I'm a card-carrying NDP member.
- I juts puked.

Re:the state of things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23602477)

Actually the Green Party of Canada had a statement on net neutrality in their platform long before the NDP took up the cause.

See: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partsix#_Toc180047668 [greenparty.ca]

(I know because I drafted it)

Ineffective. (5, Insightful)

sedmonds (94908) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596669)

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3524372&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24#1 [parl.gc.ca]

That's the bill in question.

In the highly unlikely event that this private members bill makes it through to royal assent, it will have almost no effect. Telecoms will all make use of the exception in clause 2, subsection a:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as limiting or restricting the right of a network operator to

(a) manage the flow of network traffic in a reasonable manner in order to relieve congestion;

Re:Ineffective. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23596719)

But it sounds like in order for that to take effect, congestion must first occur. So at worst, they could only manage the flow during peak hours, and who knows what will happen if people sue claiming they are purposefully not updating their networks in order to increase congestion.

Re:Ineffective. (1)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 6 years ago | (#23599821)

But it sounds like in order for [subsection (2)(a)] to take effect, congestion must first occur.

Exactly. Further, according to subsection (4):

Network operators shall make available [...] information about the user's access to the Internet, including the speed, limitations, and network management practices [...]

So, in other words, if there is some abuse of subsection (2)(a), the details of it would have to be public, and it could be more easily challenged.

That being said, it's just a first reading, and hopefully subsection (2)(a) does get clarified.

Re:Ineffective. (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596745)

Exactly.

"We have to do it because the network cannot handle the traffic otherwise"

Then when [someone] says maybe you should invest more in the network, they (the ISP) will claim their infringing their rights of distribution or some damn thing and continue on adding new clients and increasing restrictions/shaping/et al.

Re:Ineffective. (2, Interesting)

FingerSoup (928761) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597477)

The issue of course, is how you deem a reasonable manner... If for 1 hour of the day, your area is congested, and the other 23 hours of the day, people have a free ride with unrestricted access, and for that hour, a large amount of the congestion is caused by torrent traffic, then I'd say it's reasonable to curb torrents for that hour. on the other hand, oversubscribing an area and having CONSTANT congestion wouldn't fall into this definition. Lets use an analogy to explain in RL

At a border crossing, sometimes changing the direction of a lane at a makes more sense than spending millions of tax dollars to add more lanes. Sure, you may slow down a few people going in the opposite direction, but if most of the time the flow of traffic is even and steady in both directions through the border, and the reduction of lanes in the one direction is temporary, then it's OK. On the other hand, if there's either a low number of cars going through in each direction, or an equally high number of cars going through in BOTH directions, and traffic is reduced on one side to allow more people to arbitrarily go faster in one direction, then this is where it becomes unreasonable to shape the traffic in such a discriminatory way.

As a result, Some ISPs (Comcast, Bell) shape traffic to always hinder file sharing. Other, more responsible ISPs will only shape traffic during peak times, and will upgrade infrastructure when there is uncontrollable growth in an area, or more equal congestion across the network at all times of the day.

Re:Ineffective. (2, Interesting)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596779)

Um, did somebody say NDP? Well, have the NDP ever got something through? I dunno. I kinda doubt it tho. They have great ideals, but no real way to implement them. At least it seems that way to me.

Re:Ineffective. (1)

masamax (543884) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597031)

You might think so, but remember we (as in Canadians, of which I am one) live under a minority government. While its certain the Conservative party would never support this, if the NDP can gain the support of the Liberals and the Bloc (which is entirely possible) this bill will pass.

Re:Ineffective. (1)

wmabey (164607) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598023)

Even if it passes, the Conservatives will take forever to sign it into law. A few months ago, the opposition parties passed a bill obliging the Tories to honour our Kyoto Accord obligations, and that's never received Royal Assent from the governor general.

Re:Ineffective. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23597111)

Um, did somebody say NDP? Well, have the NDP ever got something through?

The NDP sometimes gets bills through when there's a minority government as part of a power deal. They also have a long history of presenting popular ideas that "fail" to pass, then are subsequently reintroduced by the government as the government's own ideas. The NDP has never had a chance of forming a goverment, but they've been a highly influential source of Canadian legislation. Probably this bill will fall in the latter catagory.

Very rough & quick sketch of Canadian federal politics for foreigners (and some Canadians): Tradtionally we've had two big mainstream parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Conservatives are a tad more Right-wing. The NDP is a smaller but solid Left-leaning party. Elections choose members for parliament from these parties, and the party with the most votes forms the government, with their leader as Prime Minister, and senior members forming Cabinet Ministers responsible for various sections of government, like defences, finances, culture, etc.

This has gone through the blender a bit in recent years after the Conservative party was virtually extinguished by voter reaction to the Mulroney goverment. This allowed the Liberals to rule too long, get too corrupt, and end up in the doghouse they're in today. Meanwhile the voting Right went through permutations as fragment parties called Reform, then Alliance, and have finally became the Conservatives again & could form a government. Also we've seen the rise of the separatist (too long to explain but don't worry about it) Bloc party. But anyway the NDP has trucked along through this pretty much unchanged: smallish but not insignificant Left-leaning party that's a key source of partnership to minority goverments, and a source of legislative ideas. They're an influential feature of Canadian politics.

Disregarding them because they'll never form a government themselves is a misunderstanding of how things work here. We don't elect a "king for 4 years" like some places. It's more messy, like a democracy.

Re:Ineffective. (1)

MrPayne (1278824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23600343)

"Elections choose members for parliament from these parties, and the party with the most votes forms the government, . . . " Not the most votes, but the most seats. Voters vote for an individual candidate in their riding. The party that won the most ridings, each riding is one seat, forms the government.

Re:Ineffective. (2, Interesting)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598909)

Well, have the NDP ever got something through? I dunno.
How about the universal "deny no one" health insurance system??? You can bet your arse it wasn't the tories (or even the libs) who were responsible for that...

Re:Ineffective. (1)

Skrapion (955066) | more than 6 years ago | (#23600993)

I like the NDP and all, but universal health care in Canada was introduced by the Liberals when Trudeau was in power.

Re:Ineffective. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23601869)

I like the NDP and all, but universal health care in Canada was introduced by the Liberals when Trudeau was in power.
Yeah after they stole idea from Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan and the CCF party, they were the fore runners of the NDP in Canada the Liberal party it seems never meet an idea from them the did not like to steal away to keep themselves in power.

Re:Ineffective. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23602445)

From the wikipedia page on the NDP

The most successful provincial section of the party has been the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party, which first came to power in 1944 as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation under Tommy Douglas and has won most of the province's elections since then. In Canada, Tommy Douglas is often cited as the Father of Medicare since, as Saskatchewan Premier, he introduced Canada's first publicly-funded, universal healthcare system there.

Re:Ineffective. (1)

marxmarv (30295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596785)

Disclaimer: I'm not a Canadian citizen but I've toyed with the idea more than once.

What are the odds that the telecoms will get regulatory bodies and judges to agree that pay-for-play is "reasonable"? I would recommend getting the words "and non-discriminatory" added if at all possible.

Re:Ineffective. (1)

Cutter (98008) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598811)

This bill, as it currently stands, will never pass. It is only had the first reading and will probably change allot by the time it gets to the third reading. Even then if section 2.a is not changed, then the Bells and Rogers can still do rate limiting and have their bit caps.

Everyone onboard!! (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596675)

"The proposed bill makes exception for ISPs to manage traffic in reasonable cases..."
Who gets to decide 'reasonable cases'?
BT traffic? any encrypted traffic?, whatever ISP's decide traffic they don't like?

Hopefully there are important details we are missing out on- if not, then you Canadians are fscked over again.
(no, there is no moral superiority involved here, we in the USA are fscked up even worse!)

Re:Everyone onboard!! (3, Insightful)

corychristison (951993) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596781)

'Reasonable cases' is in the area of VOIP.

One of the biggest concerns is the use of VOIP and the internet interfering with it. Some providers offer a VOIP based service with their internet package.

This is the 'exception' case that is to be allowed.

I just don't see how or why people like to scream bloody-fucking-murder on everything. The point is that for once someone (well, a group of people) is finally taking notice to an issue that has been around for a while. I know it's slashdot, but please... grow up.

Re:Everyone onboard!! (2, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596927)

'Reasonable cases' is in the area of VOIP.

VOIP might be a reasonable case for prioritising a single protocol, but unless the bill spells specifically states VOIP and nothing else, then it seems likely that the telcos will continue as they are now, and claim each instance of throttling is allowed under the "reasonable cases" provision.

Hence the question - who decides what's a reasonable case? You clearly have your opinion, the ISPs will almost certainly have a different one, their customers are likely to have yet another, and the opinion that matters will likely end up being that of a judge - which may or may not reflect the intent of the bill. If the author had listed specific cases then this bill might have some value. As it is, it stands an evens chance of enshrining into law the ISPs right to tamper and throttle to their hearts' content.

The point is that for once someone (well, a group of people) is finally taking notice to an issue that has been around for a while. I know it's slashdot, but please... grow up.

I don't think "who decides what is reasonable" a particularly childish question. Rather, it cuts to the core of the matter: if this bill is to achieve its apparently purpose, then which cases are and are not reasonable need to be specified with far greater precision.

Re:Everyone onboard!! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598271)

VoIP is part of a broad category of latency-sensitive protocols. Streaming media (e.g. Internet radio) are in the same category, as are games. In contrast, things like BitTorrent or FTP want a lot of bandwidth but don't care much about latency. If your app sets the correct IP flags then it can already choose between these (of course, windows sets both the low latency and high throughput flag for everything).

There is nothing wrong with ISPs giving priority to latency-sensitive packets. Most of the time when you write firewall rules you will allocate some percentage of the bandwidth for high-priority packets (TCP ACKs, interactive SSH sessions, and so on). Incoming packets get added to a queue, latency sensitive once get picked until the high-priority channel is full then ones of any category can be set. If there are no high-priority packets then this reservation will be used for lower priority stuff.

Who decides Re:Everyone onboard!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23598365)

I don't think "who decides what is reasonable" a particularly childish question.
In Canada this would be the CRTC [crtc.gc.ca]

Users decide connection priority? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23596861)

What if users could select their own priority settings an a per-application basis? Games, VoIP, video conferencing, etc would be highest priority; web browsing, email, etc would be standard priority; streaming video would be low priority.

In these cases, I don't mean for the actual bandwidth to be reduced. That would not help the network much anyway, since the same amount of data would be transferred eventually. A lower priority flag would just mean that a delay of a few extra ms, maybe even a second, is acceptable. This would enable routers to avoid bottlenecks better and use available capacity more efficiently.

There could also be an (optional) even lower priority option for long, non-urgent downloads that would throttle the speed when there is congestion.

Ideally, ISPs would then bill customers depending on how much bandwidth they use, with the lower priority settings charging less per gb than the higher ones.

Just an idea, not necessarily saying its a good one.

Bravo but... (4, Informative)

Fallen Andy (795676) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596891)

If we were talking about cars or any other consumer thing then nobody would accept the sort of nonsense we've (not me or the average /.er) been conditioned into accepting.

Even here in Greece I see typical DSL performance which is to say the least crapulent. Being charitable I'll pretend OTEnet (the former state monopoly) isn't traffic shaping (heh - that's why my torrent of ubuntu dropped dead to 10Kb/s)...

Funny that it does that after about an hour regardless of time of day...(well not always but too often to be attributable to teh interweb being busy from Greece).

A car which may or may not be able to hit 100kph with the wind behind it being sold as a Ferrari wouldn't be acceptable (unless you're a retro Citroen freak).

A Ferrari with three wheels one of which refuses to be circular on wednesdays if we're driving to visit a mistress (hey i'm in southern europe not the puritanical domain of the U.S) wouldn't be acceptable.

Some traffic shaping is inevitable. But it's a stopgap measure not an acceptable solution. If 90% of new traffic is e.g. bittorrent then the answer is either to make this premium usage (and spell it out in the contract) OR STFU and put more capacity.

Should be really simple - either *BE* a provider with acceptable use spelled out transparently or *DIE* in the marketplace.

BTW I think the "exception" is to soften the blow for ISPS so they don't end up sued to death. YMMV. Remember - legislators are mostly (ex optional) sharks^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers so there will always be exceptions. Good luck Canada. Now if we can only persuade the UK to tighten the screws and torch the bloody Phorm thing - which ought to worry everyone much much more than traffic shaping...

Which leads me to a truly dumb idea. Allocation of the RF spectrum is controlled internationally via the ITU (A UN organization). Given the nature of the Internet shouldn't it be regulated the *same* way? (Running for bomb shelter and donning asbestos undergarments right now...).

Andy.

Good use of crap, roses. Bad use of crap - Vista.

Let users see the entire set of info that is kept (1)

distantbody (852269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597005)

I mean force internet services to make viewable every last piece of info they store about userA--the entire profile. Off of the top of my head I think that would be a good thing to reign-in the googles of the world... It sounds that they seeking something like that in the bill:

requires network operators to make information about the user's access to the internet available to the user

Re:Let users see the entire set of info that is ke (1)

colesw (951825) | more than 6 years ago | (#23599643)

I think they maybe referring more to your connection speed (ie yes its upto 5Mb or whatever, but what is it actually syncing at?) Line Status: In Service UpTime: Line Profile Name: al2_d2496-2496-256_u640-640-256 Last State Change: Wed May 28 22:00:29 EDT 2008 Operational Status Speed (Kbs) Relative Capacity Occupation (%) Noise Margin (0..31 dB) Signal Power (0-20 dBm) Attenuation (0-60 dB) Block count UpStream 640 71 16.0 12.0 32.0 1.4006229E7 DownStream 2496 68 13.0 15.0 60.0 3.5324464E7 Thats for my home connection, its a little hard to read, but you can see my profile "al2_d2496-2496-256_u640-640-256". So basically I pay for up to 5Mb and I sync at 2.5Mb ... hardly seems fair (well I get it free from work, but we pay for it as 5Mb ;). Since its completely impossible for me to get even 5Mb back to the ISP. Oh and on a side note, only the ISP your with can give you this info (as far as I know) not another DSL provider.

Re:Let users see the entire set of info that is ke (1)

colesw (951825) | more than 6 years ago | (#23599679)

*sigh* Hate replying to my own, I should have used preview as it all went together ;)

Typo in second paragraph (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597039)

"'This bill is aboot fairness to consumers,' said Charlie Angus, the NDP's digital spokesman.
Fixed.

Re:Typo in second paragraph (0, Redundant)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597883)

No, no, no. You're doing it all wrong.

'This bill is aboot fairness to consumers, eh?' said Charlie Angus, the NDP's digital spokesman.
There!

Let the user choose... (4, Interesting)

GNUPublicLicense (1242094) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597165)

The idea would be that the IAPs should split their bandwidth fairly among all their users. In its bandwidth share, the user should prioritize its outgoing traffic. The IAP should shape the incomming traffic fairly between each of its user. In this scenario, low latency network applications are dead (video conferencing/telephony/video games...): in an home network lan, the momy is watching a HD internet TV channel, the boy can forget playing online its favorite FPS and the girl cannot have a decent IP phone line call. That's why there is a exception to let the IAP to shape further specifically on low lantency protocols... but they will never be able to embrace all past-present-futur low latency protocols on the net. Of course they could favor only the protocols of big bucks corporations. So you could trash any open low latency protocols...

But there is a another way: IPv6. Indeed the protocol does have labels that let you tag traffic. Its means the user network apps can tell the IAP equipement what type of traffic they send. So the IAPs can apply shaping rules based on that type of traffic on cross-user boundaries. Nethertheless in a traffic priority class, the IAP still has to provide fairness among users. Basically, fairness among user is not applied on traffic as a whole but on a per traffic class basis.

Of course in the real world, low latency traffic will have to be shaped to very small bandwidth... smart users would push their P2P traffic on high priority. The idea on high priority traffic classes is to have just enough bandwidth to let signaling, highly compressed voice, intense action FPS game data. Of course, you can have several high priority classes. BUT there is a BIG exception to all of this, emergency services: for instance you want to call from the net the "internet US 911". In this case the IAP equipement will have to know without IPv6 label that you are calling an emergency service (IP based shaping, but amount of IPs must be minimal to avoid overloaded routing tables and increased latency that will degrade internet quality significantly).

I let you imagine what it will be when users will have Fiber To The Home with upload bandwidth on a 100's of Mb scale!

This does mean, rewritting many network applications. Deep IAP topology reconfiguration. More expensive IAP equipements: must be able to perform shaping extremely quickly in order to minimize the latency cost(=forget high level protocol shaping or shaping based on too much data(IPs)).

And the last but not the least... IPv6!

packrat (1)

packrat2 (686953) | more than 6 years ago | (#23597857)

filtering (404 checkers)
  throttling ( now ISPs have a video on demand)
  and ad-injection.

  biz will win out over net neutralization..
  privacy, copyright, and other issues already taken care of.

You insensi7ive clod?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23598045)

of open-sOurce. too much formalit7 an arduous

Good idea but... (1)

despe666 (802244) | more than 6 years ago | (#23598867)

This sounds like a good idea, but I doubt nothing will happen. This is a private bill. I can see the whole NDP and Bloc voting for it. However, knowing the conservatives, they will not be happy about that bill, and will likely make it a confidence vote. And the liberals will fall flat once again.

Re:Good idea but... (1)

alaska nemesis (721038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23600821)

For those Americans and others who read this and assume it actually means something. The NDP is a small party full of crackpots and prairie halfwits. Think the US green party added to the moveone.org loons gives you a fairly good idea of what will happen to anything they propose.
Even if this was the greatest Idea in the world most people in other areas than Sask and a few cities in British Columbia will quit listening the second they hear that the NDP was the one that proposed it. This is the fate of most good ideas that are buried in a endless stream of drivel from crazies. After a while people tune out all ideas even the good ones.

Just change the business model. (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#23599305)

The gas company sells me gas by the cubic meter. The water company sells me water by the cubic meter. So why not have the ISP's sell me throughput (up and down) by the bit. The more I use the more I pay for. (Yes I know there will be other delivery/infastructure charges same as for water and gas)

Re:Just change the business model. (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23600181)

The gas company sells me gas by the cubic meter. The water company sells me water by the cubic meter. So why not have the ISP's sell me throughput by the cubit.
Fixed that for ya.

Re:Just change the business model. (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#23600321)

Then I would be paying an arm and a leg for it.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23599751)

que Senator Ted Stevens babbling about not getting his "internet" (meaning email) until 3 days later and its all because of Netflix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

NDP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23600037)

Total nutbars.

However, explains Michael Liberal Geist's non-coverage.

yawn

Unfortunately, net neutrality is unrealistic (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23600099)

Although I completely agree that ISPs are screwing nearly everyone, net neutrality is still unrealistic.

It's better to think of your internet connection like a tolled highway. When you pay $X to get onto the tolled highway, and your car can go 120kmph, thinking that you should rightfully be able to drive at a constant 120kmph is unrealistic. If there's lots of traffic, it doesn't matter what you paid for, you've still got to wait. Yet people seem to accept this, and not accept when their internet connection is slow.

Yes, you do pay for a certain speed with your ISP, and I don't think this business model is correct or even accurate. But the same principles apply.

ISPs should be run more like tolled highways. You pay a certain fee to get access to a range of kbps (like how you pay different fees for access to different highways at 60kmph, 80kmph, 100kmph). You then pay-per-bits downloaded on your connection (like how you pay-per-distance travelled on the highway).

I think this makes perfect sense.

Re:Unfortunately, net neutrality is unrealistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23600921)

Neutrality is the guarantee that says your toll road can't charge more for Chrysler cars (because Chrysler didn't pay the road-owner his extortion fee) or refusing to permit any Japanese cars whatsoever, simply because the road owner has a personal bias.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>