×

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!

Canadian ISPs Speak Out Against Net Neutrality

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-can-trust-us,-eh dept.

The Internet 213

Ars Technica reports on a proceeding being held by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission regarding net neutrality. They requested comments from the public as part of the debate, and several Canadian ISPs took the opportunity to explain why they think it's a bad idea. Quoting: "One of the more interesting responses came from an ISP called Videotron, which told the CRTC that controlling access to content ... 'could be beneficial not only to users of Internet services but to society in general.' As examples of such benefits, Videotron mentioned the control of spam, viruses, and child pornography. It went on to suggest that graduated response rules — kicking users off the 'Net after several accusations of copyright infringement — could also be included as a benefit to society in general. ... Rogers, one of Canada's big ISPs, also chimed in and explained that new regulations might limit its ability to throttle P2P uploads, which it does at the moment. 'P2P file sharing is designed to cause network congestion,' says the company. 'It contributes significantly to latency, thereby making the network unreliable for certain users at periods of such congestion.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

213 comments

want the old slashdot back? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023951)

take the time to mod down any story that's political in nature, just another two-minute hate bash session or anything kdawson lists himself as editor of.

Re:want the old slashdot back? (5, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024035)

But that's just the genertional gap just being shown.

Back in the old days, /. was a purists tech site. They had some funnies as in (groan), but mostly was discussion and Linux advocation. Then, we really didnt care about the legality of whatever. As long as it was technologically feasible and interesting, it was worth doing.

Fast forward past the Napster years....

We now live in a world of "Papers Please", and surveillance tech. Most of our cool ideas have been deemed "illegal", as they were gray first. The 2600 judgment said that just linking was violating. Now, most of our efforts are to try to turn this tide around, telling politicians how stupid their policies really are.

We now talk about network neutrality, but that's solved by encryption. Next they block encryption and we set it up to look like html over http "share servers". And then we have the 750-35000 dollar fine if we are found trading. Look at NewYorkCountryLawyer for those situations. He's a techie geek lawyer who fights on our side.

Re:want the old slashdot back? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024079)

how the fuck would someone with such a high uid like you know anything? get the fuck out of here bitch ass trick n00b.

Re:want the old slashdot back? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024241)

Sometimes I'm an idiot! I do sincerely apologize for these occasions, like just now.

Re:want the old slashdot back? (2, Interesting)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024253)

Your argument might be valid if A. you had an impressively low uid to backup your differing opinion, and B. they weren't absolutely correct. That said, a low user id doesn't mean you actually /know/ anything, just that you've been around longer; age does not necessarily correlate with sense.

Re:want the old slashdot back? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024255)

not like you and your infinity low uid? I've used slashdot since the day I heard about it post as an anonymous coward for almost a year before feeling the need to participate and get a user account. I have a fairly low uid but it would have been lower if I had signed up earlier. Who are you to say someone hasn't been following slashdot for years just because of a stupid fucking number that means nothing besides one day wanting to go and click register instead of reply and posting as anonymous.

Stop trolling or if your going to bitch about uids at least have the balls to use your own and take the karma hit for being an idiot.

Re:want the old slashdot back? (1)

HwyRogue (1141627) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024123)

Agreed. Their arguments should fall on deaf ears - the problem is that they fall on uneducated ears. Most judges have no idea what goes on in the real world, let alone in the world of technology. If their packet shaping goes through, Canada's internet go down the crapper... all we need is content filtering - uhm..if ISPs are that concerned, offer services like netnanny for free..parents should be taking onus for what their kids browse!

Stop overselling (5, Insightful)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023953)

If you can't provide what you're being paid for, stop overselling the network you have.

Re:Stop overselling (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023977)

We need an article on why Canadian ISP's are a bad thing.

Re:Stop overselling (1)

code4fun (739014) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024343)

If you can't provide what you're being paid for, stop overselling the network you have.

I totally agree and never bite the hands that feed you!

Re:Stop overselling (4, Informative)

iSeal (854481) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024605)

I think this illustrates how few people understand how consumer broadband works.

The reason consumer broadband is so cheap is that bandwidth is actually shared in pools of people. It's not like having a business-class connection where you have dedicated lines, a guaranteed speed (ie. 1.5MB/s per person), and the price to reflect it.

Consumer broadband is different. Allocate 50MBs to a pool of people, and cap each person at 5MB/s. With casual net usage, that's not a problem. Games are low in bandwidth, and web surfing produces sporadic spikes of intense bandwidth usage. At 50MB/s, you could get maybe a thousand simultaneous users. They all download their pages at blazing speeds, and have low latency on their games. Because its shared, the price is cheap too.

But if you introduce something like bittorrent into that consumer broadband usage model, then we have a problem. Because now, it only takes a relative few to clog up the entire allocated 50MB/s.

ISPs like Rogers who used pool resources are now faced with a dilemma: how you maintain speeds for everyone, while keeping the price low - for everyone? They've chosen to throttle connections. Is it right? Perhaps not.

But it's important to understand that the issue is just not as black and white as some would like it to be. I'm for net neutrality, in terms of being blind to who the end IP is. I don't want Site X to be slower because they didn't pay Rogers a premium. However, I'm not against traffic shaping high-bandwidth services. If you want the bandwidth so bad, then pay for a line with guaranteed speeds.

Re:Stop overselling (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024679)

Then why is it that I can get service that is not capped and is not shaped from TekSavvy? They are already paying almost all of the cost as fees to Bell (their profit margin is extremely low, they have to work with volume of subscriptions) and they are $20+ cheaper in order to compete in the market. On top of that their support isn't a fucking joke.

Oh, right, it's because Bell and Rogers are making a fortune overselling their shitty service and not spending anything to increase capacity or to have useful tech support.

Re:Stop overselling (3, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024683)

If you're selling a 50MB/s to 1,000 people at "5MB/s per person", you deserve anything bad that comes your way. I can see putting maybe up to 20 people on that 50MB/s on a supposed 5MB/s per person, but anything more than that is definitely asking for trouble. Even regular users are going to max their connections simultaneously during peak hours.

Re:Stop overselling (2, Interesting)

amorsen (7485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27025071)

You won't really see 50Mbps shared by anyone (except cable networks). More like 1000Mbps shared to hundreds or thousands of customers. You'd be surprised by how little bandwidth is actually used, except by students.

Re:Stop overselling (1)

themacks (1197889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27025023)

I think it is a little more black and white than you paint it to be. If ISPs had a reasonable uplink they wouldn't have quite the issues. It really doesn't take an enormous amount of capacity to support people's connections at even 5Mbs. From my time at Georgia Tech I got to see a good bit about the network. For starters they had gigabit to most dorms and 100mb to the rest. Considering that it is a technology based school usage would be much higher than normal. With around 8000 students in dorms the max usage over the entire year was only 1Gbps. The average was 350Mbps. To say that it would be hard for an ISP to support typical users at 5Mbs seems naive. They would just have to actually put a little money into their infrastructure.

Stop overselling, or don't... (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 5 years ago | (#27025045)

Overselling is okay, but you have to be ready to invest and deliver the product to those of your customers who actually do intent to use your product to the full extend.
If you don't want to do that then change the pricing scheme!

"Designed"? (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023973)

'P2P file sharing is designed to cause network congestion,' says the company.

Yes! Clearly, when designing a P2P protocol, my first concern was to make absolutely sure that your network would be congested, because I hate the Internet!

This isn't all about you, ISPs. It's about us, and what we want to use our bandwidth for. And yes, P2P filesharing does have design goals other than clogging your tubes.

Re:"Designed"? (0, Redundant)

Puffy Director Pants (1242492) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023995)

I'm sure most P2P protocols aren't designed to congest networks, but that doesn't mean they don't.

Re:"Designed"? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024139)

HTTP wasn't designed to congest networks, but as it is unicast, if lots of people "tune in" online to watch the latest Presidential address, the networks get congested. Arguably, P2P would be better in this, and multicast streaming would be even better.
Should ISPs prioritize P2P above HTTP, and multicast above P2P?

Re:"Designed"? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024345)

p2p congests less than HTTP because a good chunk of the traffic stays local

Howa bout having one super-leacher serving as lieutenant seeder to the network's other peers?

Heck, P2P could even SAVE the ISP money by sparing it from costly transit payments with its upstreams.

P2P may be cloggy, but as far as upstream bw goes, it gets a bigger bang for the byte.

Re:"Designed"? (5, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024107)

p2p was designed to cause congestion in the same way that cars were designed to cause traffic jams.

Re:"Designed"? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024131)

p2p was designed to cause congestion in the same way that cars were designed to cause traffic jams.

A CAR ANALOGY! Woohoo! It all makes sense now.

Re:"Designed"? (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024283)

Can you work a tube/truck/horse analogy into it somehow? Then it will make sense to the old former-phone-company employees who run the ISPs.

Re:"Designed"? (1)

S-4'N3 (1232394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024897)

Apparently, Videotron doesn't see that P2P is a way of eliminating network congestion. It is far more efficient and lest congesting than a direct client/server model. Pretend for a moment that I'm Trent Reznor. I 'could' release my album on line, stick it on a hosting server, and ask my millions of adoring fans to download it from me directly. But that would clock the tubes, specifically, those near my hosting server. OR I could let them download a tiny torrent file, and they can download my latest album from each other. Which sounds like it would cause more network congestion? With advancements of P2P, congestion problems are further solved as there have been a couple Torrent client plugins I've heard of that try to find peers geographically close to you, thus filling fewer tubes with your pron.

Re:"Designed"? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024973)

p2p was designed to cause congestion in the same way that cars were designed to cause traffic jams.

Not quite.
P2P apps usually open large numbers of connections.
This is optimal from a P2P user's perspective.
It is not optimal from an ISP perspective.

It's the difference between Napster (1 to 1) and bittorrent (many to many).
The network degrades equally for everyone under Napster, but not so much under bittorrent.

At least that's my understanding of how things work.

Re:"Designed"? (5, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024185)

And yes, P2P filesharing does have design goals other than clogging your tubes.

The way I see it, the portion I paid for is my tubes. And unlimited means unlimited.

Re:"Designed"? (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024317)

And yes, P2P filesharing does have design goals other than clogging your tubes.

The way I see it, the portion I paid for is my tubes. And unlimited means unlimited.

Indeed. If they received even one cent of public money towards building their infrastructure then net neutrality should be an absolute and uncompromised requirement. If they have a government-enforced monopoly like most (all?) telecoms, then net neutrality should be an absolute requirement.

Re:"Designed"? (1)

paulwye (1465203) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024323)

Yeah, that's a pretty bullshit-y thing to say--an HTTP download of a driver package or a POP3 download of some attached JPGS will naturally run at the fastest possible speed--that's what TCP was designed to do. So by that logic, anything I use my connection for is 'designed to cause network congestion'...whichever asshole came up with that statement needs to be smacked upside the head.

Re:"Designed"? (2, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024379)

I get 100 mbit fiber for $65/mo in a small town in Iowa. WTF is taking the rest of you so long?

One word, comcast...

People with handcuffs and shackles on (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023987)

are hard pressed to hurt others. Indeed, we are quite safe when everyone is controlled and limited. Sadly, Videotron is playing the typical "think of the children" and "trade freedom for safety" thing because they think it'll get them in good with the media companies.

Or something retarded like that.

Re:People with handcuffs and shackles on (3, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024293)

"Stop piracy and stop child porn": there are no clearer codewords for economically motivated user rights infringement.

Re:People with handcuffs and shackles on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024297)

you don't understand

Vidéotron is Québécor and Québécor IS the media companies.

Re:People with handcuffs and shackles on (5, Informative)

Shark (78448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024725)

Videotron (Quebecor) pretty much *is* the media company. A branch of it anyway.

And I saw people wonder why the local media wasn't picking up on this around here. Quebecor owns half the press and TV channels.

"Benefit to society." (5, Interesting)

TheFlyingBuddha (1373717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023997)

I would prefer they elaborate on this generic "benefit for society" that comes from protecting the copyright interests of corporate entities. I don't really see how this particular item helps all of us lead better lives.

Re:"Benefit to society." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024429)

I would prefer they elaborate on this generic "benefit for society" that comes from protecting the copyright interests of corporate entities.

It takes a lot of work to create something new. It takes a lot less work to copy what someone else has already done. Copyright and patents give creators a temporary, state-enforced monopoly on the trade in their work, barring people from copying their work for a short period of time. This monopoly gives the creator the opportunity to profit from his work. If demand is high enough that the creator can turn a profit, and no one can undersell the creator, then creative work becomes a sustainable enterprise. The creator can then spend all of his time studying and thinking about creating new things instead of spending all of his time working at Burger King and not putting much effort into that idea he had because some rich capitalist is just going to steal it.

This idea is irrelevant to the problems in the current implementation of the system where creators have to sell their monopoly for a pittance to the distribution oligopoly to see any profit from it, sufficiently lawyered powers can outright steal the work of insufficiently lawyered creators, monopolies are granted to sufficiently lawyered groups for obvious and common things, and "a short period of time" has become "forever".

Re:"Benefit to society." (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024831)

[snip "copyrights make content creation a viable business model"]

So where are the studies showing that this actually works in practice, that creative output as a whole has increased (quantity or quality) due to copyrights?

How did playwrights/composers make a living before copyright (especially given that there were people who could watch/listen to a performance and remember it well enough to duplicate it)?

How is it that some publishers make money selling copies of government reports (which are public domain)?

Re:"Benefit to society." (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024771)

I think it could "benefit for society", but only if I am the one that decides what is beneficial and not Videotron.
/sarcasm

Re:"Benefit to society." (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024789)

Don't you know that nothing had been invented before patents? And nothing was written before copyrights?

accusations (5, Insightful)

JustKidding (591117) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024007)

"kicking users off the 'Net after several accusations of copyright infringement"

notice how he used the word "accusations" instead of anything that would imply the necessity of evidence.

Re:accusations (1)

callinyouin (1138469) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024121)

If companies like this had their way I'm sure it wouldn't be too far fetched to be disconnected after downloading and seeding a couple of Linux distros for a bit. The use of bandwidth alone would be enough "evidence" of copyright infringement, I'm sure.

Re:accusations (2, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024307)

And of course abusive "we do what we want" style EULA's mean you don't have recourse, as it's one of those "sole and final discretion" deals.

Re:accusations (1)

hkfczrqj (671146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024149)

notice how he used the word "accusations" instead of anything that would imply the necessity of evidence.

In older times, the role of punishing people due to accusations (without need for evidence) was carried out by the Inquisition. Nobody expects the Canuck Inquisition!

Re:accusations (1)

BeerGood (561775) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024309)

Videotron is my ISP and I've been happy with them for many years but if they start pulling any of this shit they won't have to kick me... I'll gladly switch ISPs.

Re:accusations (1)

CR0 (22574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024329)

I for one accuse that man of copyright infringement! Who is with me? Maybe if there are 3 or 4 or us we can get him kicked off the net!

--
Need a break? Try Fable Island [facebook.com]

Re:accusations (2, Interesting)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024393)

How about we punish corporations on accusation?

For example, three paople call in that the RIAA is evading taxes. So the police comes and seizes all their assets because they were evading taxes.

Someone calls that the ISP proposing this is commiting fraud and false advertising because they do not deliver what they promise. So, they are heavily fined for doing this withou any evidence.

After several accusations, the corporation is forced to close and the CEO is sentenced to life without parole with confiscation of all assets.

Now this would benefit the society.

o, canada... (5, Insightful)

emart (1343753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024045)

i thought you were strong and free? why do i feel so disappointed?

Re:o, canada... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024061)

That's not as ironic as the US being "the home of the brave".

Re:o, canada... (2, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024311)

And with the highest incarceration rate in the world, they are also "Land of the free".

Re:o, canada... (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024769)

We need a bit of a reality check though. This is a lot like complaining about your glory days back when you were young.

'Free' and 'Brave' involves the sort of social character needed to maintain this sort of status. The root of the problem is that we are so used to the government taking care of everything for us that we have entirely forgotten how to be brave and fight for our freedom.

We're made to feel powerless and lulled out of our political/social involvement and activism. We let it happen, we have no right to complain.

That's Videotron for you (5, Informative)

Cow_woC (174453) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024093)

Anyone who's dealt with Videotron before recognizes their double speak. They have a long history of draconian practices such as capping the bandwidth of their users at a very low level, preventing the use of *any* sort of server, charging $50 per static IP you request, etc.

They go out of their way to rip off their users and then try to impose the same draconian measures on their competitors in order to discourage users from jumping ship. The same applies to Bell.

The Canadian government should outlaw any one company from owning *both* the infrastructure and service components of media services. Right now Bell is abusing their monopoly on phone lines to lock competitors out of the ADSL space and Videotron monopolizes its control of cable lines to lock competitors out of the TV space.

Net neutrality (4, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024097)

Net neutrality is like highway neutrality.

Would you be upset if companies were allowed to contruct paying-subscriber-only lanes on the freeway? Or if they were able to just throw out traffic cones wherever they wanted?

It really is that fucking simple. There is no benefit from any deviation from net neutrality.

Re:Net neutrality (-1, Flamebait)

cherokee158 (701472) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024195)

You mean, like carpool lanes?

Re:Net neutrality (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024295)

No he didn't mean carpool lanes. It's blatantly fucking obvious that carpool lanes don't fit into this analogy. Stop trying to be clever, you fucking fruit.

Re:Net neutrality (2, Interesting)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024327)

Just like that - which is why P2P traffic should be prioritised. It potentially services more people per packet.

Re:Net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024259)

Toll roads?

Re:Net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024591)

And those just work great, much better maintained than non-toll roads...

Re:Net neutrality (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024865)

Would you be upset if companies were allowed to contruct paying-subscriber-only lanes on the freeway? Or if they were able to just throw out traffic cones wherever they wanted?

It's potentially worse than that. It might be as bad as if trucking companies were allowed to own roads, and then permitted to charge competing trucking companies more than they charge their own trucks. Or charge you more to drive because they don't like the route you decided to take, or don't believe that they get financial benefit from the contents of your trunk.

I think the main problem (and I admit that I harp on this a lot) is that people think of the Internet as an entertainment service rather than infrastructure. They think, "Magazine publishers get to decide what's in their magazine, so why shouldn't ISPs get to decide what's on the Internet?" But it really is more like, "Why shouldn't the electric company decide what appliances can be run in your home?"

Could tightened control by ISPs help prevent child pornography from being available on the web? Possibly-- in just about the same way that allowing a private company to control traffic flow on roads could prevent kidnapping.

Re:Net neutrality (4, Informative)

caseih (160668) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024931)

No it's not. Bad analogy. Actually horrid analogy. As bad as the famous ted stevens dump trucks and tubes idea.

Roads are considered "public" because they are paid for with public funds. If a company somehow was able to own 100 miles of land and build a nice freeway on it with their own money, they certainly could charge whatever they want to whoever they want. And subscriber-only lanes would be totally legal.

Certainly some network pipes are bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars. But a lot of trunks are real investments on the part of the telcos. Granted there is a certain amount of government-granted monopoly status going on here... there are only so many right of ways, etc.

The real issue involves dishonest double-dipping. ISPs and telcos want to charge you twice for everything you do, and charge companies like Google twice as well. They also want the right to sell you what purports to be connection you can transmit any kind of data on, and then turn around and intentionally slow certain kinds of traffic, or charge you more for certain kinds of data. Kickbacks from companies willing to pay to get their content delivered faster are then given an artificial advantage over others. This behavior might be barely legal, depending on racketeering laws, but certainly isn't ethical.

Videotron as everything to loose to P2P (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024101)

Videotron is not not just an ISP.

They are also a cable company, phone company
and they own stores where you can rent dvds
and games.

The are own by Quebecor, which is a publishing
company, which also owns TVA, a tv station,
and stores selling video games, and the list goes on and on.

Basically, they tend to be a monopole which
wants to make you pay for everything you watch and
play.

They are certainly not neutral about net neutrality.

and that makes Videotron a ..... (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024151)

Fantastic shining example of why we NEED network neutrality; to stop companies like this from having a monopoly on all entertainment and in doing so drag your business and information needs into the same quagmire of unregulated information highway robbery.

Time for an information age robin hood?

This sort of greed is disgusting.

Re:and that makes Videotron a ..... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024285)

Fantastic shining example of why we NEED network neutrality; to stop companies like this from having a monopoly on all entertainment

I thought the whole point of copyright is to give the creater/owner a monopoly on their content.

Re:and that makes Videotron a ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024489)

Fantastic shining example of why we DON'T NEED copyright.

Re:and that makes Videotron a ..... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024495)

No.

Though you'd not know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024503)

Talking to the copyright cartels. They NEVER mention that they have a monopoly and copyright gives them that.

Because they want

a) Free market for their use
b) Monopoly for their use
c) Nobody to know they're getting both

Re:and that makes Videotron a ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024797)

Well said!

Unfortunately, this seems to be all the rage. 2 companies in belgium, who used to just offer telephone subscriptions, are now the 2 major players in digital television. You'd think there would be some good competition here, but prices are among the highest of europe.

Re:Videotron as everything to loose to P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024421)

And Rogers isn't much different than Videotron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Communications

At least Rogers didn't go there and say that it was for the good of society.

Re:Videotron as everything to loose to P2P (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024721)

YOu can bet your ass that TVA will not be reporting any news about this, or if they do, it'll be about how bad the evil p2p users are.

Re:Videotron as everything to loose to P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024835)

yes, but at least they're not neutral about their non-neutrality...

company regulation? (2, Insightful)

haggus71 (1051238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024179)

Oh wait. I thought it was the government's job to regulate businesses. The latest economic crisis has pretty much shot businesses in the foot on that matter.

Last time I heard, they have 100 mbps in Japan and Korea, a great infrastructure, and no bottleneck issues. If Videotron, or any other western ISP, can't keep up with technology, maybe they just need to fail, and admit that our communication infrastructure isn't something to be entrusted to people out to make a buck.

Re:company regulation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024267)

Yeah, cuz Japan and Korea aren't a fraction of the size of Canada, and the ISPs there have exactly the same concerns and challenges as the ones in Quebec!

Re:company regulation? (2, Insightful)

chdig (1050302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024325)

Ironically, Videotron gives the best service in Quebec -- no slow downs at peak hours, double or more the speed of DSL competitors. Which is why it's so deceiving that they're blaming congestion issues as a reason to get rid of network neutrality.

Hey Harper (Mr. Prime Minister), repeat after me: there is no need, at present, to break network neutrality. If congestion becomes an issue in the future, due to all bandwidth running through only two "pipes" (Bell & Videotron/Rogers), then maybe it's the competition laws that need to be reworked rather than internet usage laws.

Re:company regulation? (1)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024659)

Funny thing about Videotron is they're on really really good terms with the government. I mean REALLY good.
A few years back Rogers made a bid to buy out Videotron, and the Québec government stepped in and blocked the deal. So you can't expect Videotron to be too concerned about violating regulations or laws, or anything to that effect.

"We own the pipes"? (2, Informative)

Corson (746347) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024217)

They only have a say in it because they think they "own the pipes", but guess what? Most of the "pipe" network was actually built with public money. If Verizon closed their business operations tomorrow the Net would continue to exist, which proves that the "pipes" Verizon own are actually just a tiny, irrelevant bit of the Net.

Re:"We own the pipes"? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024303)

Can somebody enlighten me about what exactly these ISPs bought or licensed to use? I get confused by this whole issue of what it takes to become my own ISP. That is, removing these companies from the equation entirely.

If we own the "pipes" then why do I need an ISP?

Re:"We own the pipes"? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024347)

The internet will detect the damage and route around it. As if it was some sort of network of interconnected nodes designed to have multiple levels of potential redundancy in the case of a catastrophic, near apocalyptic event, such as a nuclear strike or something...

Odd that...

as a canadian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024239)

Is it just me... but will anyone lose any sleep over this if canada filter/limit their users and content.

Videotron hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024247)

"Videotron mentioned the control of spam, viruses, and child pornography"

That's hilarious. A couple of years ago most of the spam I received from Canadian sources was coming from Videotron domains, and it would keep on coming even after reporting it to them. I don't know if they ever cleaned up their act, but it got so bad that I eventually added anything with a videotron.ca domain into my e-mail spam filter.

Net Neutrality vs QoS (4, Informative)

Darkon (206829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024257)

Rogers, one of Canada's big ISPs, also chimed in and explained that new regulations might limit its ability to throttle P2P uploads

No. Net Neutrality ensures no discrimination based on traffic source or destination. This has nothing to do with Quality of Service filtering, which is discrimination based on traffic type. They can still throttle my P2P all they like, they just can't throttle my access to YouTube because YouTube didn't pony up some "high traffic site fee".

Re:Net Neutrality vs QoS (3, Insightful)

paulwye (1465203) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024403)

Um...I would disagree. Net Neutrality should (and, I believe, is generally accepted to) mean that my provider cannot screw with my traffic because it suits their interests to do so. What happens if they decide to throttle voip traffic due to 'network congestion', but the start of such throttling just happens to coincide with the launch of their own voip service? It has to be an open pipe, period.

Re:Net Neutrality vs QoS (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024563)

> What happens if they decide to throttle voip traffic due to 'network congestion', but the start of such throttling just happens to coincide with the launch of their own voip service? It has to be an open pipe, period.

He's saying that they have to deal with ALL VoIP the same. So they can throttle VoIP, but they have to do it for theirs, as well. They can't cut someone a special deal to uncap it.

Re:Net Neutrality vs QoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024433)

No. Net Neutrality ensures no discrimination based on traffic source or destination. This has nothing to do with Quality of Service filtering, which is discrimination based on traffic type. They can still throttle my P2P all they like, they just can't throttle my access to YouTube because YouTube didn't pony up some "high traffic site fee".

No. Net Neutrality ensures no discrimination based on traffic source or destination. This has nothing to do with Quality of Service filtering, which is discrimination based on traffic type. They can still throttle my P2P all they like, they just can't throttle my access to YouTube because YouTube didn't pony up some "high traffic site fee".

You've arbitrarily (or not) given the HTTP special protocol network neutrality, and exempted (just as arbitrarily) another protocol, bittorrent, simply by calling it "Quality of Service" filtering instead of what it actually is, a violation of net neutrality.

Net neutrality means BYTES ARE BYTES, regardless of source or destination.

Re:Net Neutrality vs QoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024483)

Net Neutrality ensures no discrimination based on traffic source or destination.

Allow me to raise a side issue that I have not seen mentioned in Net Neutrality discussions. I have yet to see a Net Neutrality proposal that would not outlaw blocking spam. If you cannot block or punish certain hosts or users because of who they are, how do you block off systems that send spam?

Anonymous Coward (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024313)

It schould be noted that Videotron is not only an Isp but it also the top cable and tv station in it market, so it'is not your average isp.

Congestion (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024335)

"General usage of the internet can cause congestion and latency on the network. We therefore propose that no one should be allowed to use the internet. Any usage would lead to depletion of the valuable network bandwidth. Oh, and, uhm, think of the children."

Misdirection (3, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024425)

One of the more interesting responses came from an ISP called Videotron, which told the CRTC that controlling access to content ... 'could be beneficial not only to users of Internet services but to society in general.' As examples of such benefits, Videotron mentioned the control of spam, viruses ...

What blatant misdirection! There's a huge difference between blocking spam and viruses in order to protect customers against hassle and harm, and blocking access to content because it allows you to make a buck once the content producer begs you to please stop blocking their content. Protecting customers against spam and viruses is a service; blocking content because the content provider hasn't paid you off, on the other hand, is extortion. Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent just this kind of extortion.

jam it in your asses (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024449)

bunch of faggot bitches.

Kicking users off the 'Net after several accusatio (1, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024477)

First of all last time I checked and looked at my stack of blank cdr's I paid for the right to legally download music all I want. Want it any other way best remove the levi and pay me back the money I paid into it for the pleasure of storing my own Photos and documents.

I'll sending Shaw off a nice letter today and a pre cancelation notice they can keep and use the day they decided to limit my rights and INTERNET connection.

Probably in response to (1)

MetaDFF (944558) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024539)

It looks like the ISPs are standing up to traffic throttling in in response to Google, Amazon and Skype's request to the CRTC to ban traffic throttling.
With big recognizable names like Google, Amazon and Skype backing net neutrality, hopefully the CRTC will be swayed to rule in favor of stopping traffic shaping or at least scrutinize the current behavior of ISPs like Rogers and Bell.
Google, Amazon ask CRTC to stop Internet traffic shaping [itworldcanada.com]

Tubes... (4, Interesting)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024643)

Maybe we should make the tubes owned by a public company that leases lines to ISPs rather than letting Rogers, Bell and all these other companies do it.

Videotron are part of a bigger monopol (1)

LullySing (164221) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024689)

The cocksuckers at videotron saying such bullshit is up to par with the company line. you see, Videotron are part of Quebecor Media corporation, a media entity that has a solid hold on information over this province. Owning multiple newspapers, radio stations, a television channel and videotron, these bastards have made it a corporate strategy to auto-pimp everything that they do. Their newspapers will pimp their french language big brother, which will redirect to canoe.ca ( their own infotainment portal) to vote that week, etc etc.

To them, control over everything is key, so of course they don't fucking want net neutrality, cuz it would be bad for their strategy of walling everything media related in this province. Thank the Bob for the quality news of radio-canada.ca(the french cbc) and Le devoir, THE independent newspaper in this province (http://www.ledevoir.com).

Quebecor are monopolist bastards and I wish the politicians in this province would force them to sell off some of their media properties, as this is getting ridiculous.

No Competition (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024857)

Michael Geist's comments in the article pretty much strike to the heart of the matter. There are only a handful of major ISPs (which are parts of a larger media/telecomm corporation), and typically only two exist in the same community. The rest are resellers who are at the whim of the incumbent carriers.

Frankly, I think the internet should function like hydro - you get hooked up, you have a meter, and are billed for the amount you use. If you want to buy bulk bandwidth (or other extras ie email addresses, webspace, tv access), then you can go to an ISP and get those extras.

I wouldn't mind the extra taxes having a public infrastructure would incur. It's Canada after all, we're used to taxes.

mod do3n (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024905)

Kreskin Then disappeared all over America this mistake or you down. It 3as some intelligent cont1nues in a today. It's about the fruitless counterpart,

Missed the Boat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024913)

So wait, you (ISPs) are complaining about people using your bandwidth? Excuse me, but isn't that what we're paying you for?

Right now you're offering a product where you give us bandwidth in exchange for our money. Now, according to you, it's unreasonable for you to have to provide that bandwidth. Doesn't that leave the entire description of what you offer as "You pay us money"? I think you may be missing a key part of selling a product. You know... the product?

Separation of "Carrier" from Content needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024915)

I think it's clear from several other posts that one of the big problems here is the underlying conflict-of-interest. Videotron, Rogers, and Bell (not sure about Shaw) all do distribution and also own/manage content creators/distributors. From my standpoint, this makes it difficult to see them ever wanting true "neutrality", given their need to leverage revenue opportunities gained from giving preference to their own respective content sources and other service offerings (like VoIP).

So how about a small suggestion? No "neutrality" laws, provided these companies separate their "carrier" and "content" arms. That way, the "carrier" units will be able to offer alternative content offerings, helping drive better completion for services in this area. This is similar to the existing logic for power "generation" versus "distribution" that exists for Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and other states and provinces in North America. Multiple different generation companies provide the electricity; same distribution grid to your door.

Of course, I expect no takers on this option - leveraging the "synergy" of owning the distribution network as well as the content to be sold through it is an old, old dream. Just ask the big Hollywood movie companies, which only relatively recently were allowed to once again own/control the theaters that display their content. Imagine what it would be like if Cineplex gave preference to Warner Brothers movies along with Atlantis Alliance, while AMC mainly showed Paramount and Lions' Gate films. Makes about as much sense as running the 407 as a private toll-road (yes, I live in the Toronto area).

My view? "Neutrality" laws are as mandatory for cable and data communication network providers as utility regulation was for gas and electricity, so long as the "carrier" in question is not independently contracted by the state or province for providing service. If Videotron doesn't like the current legal strategy, they just have to divest themselves of their cable distribution network, and work with the Government of Quebec to provide a regulated distribution grid for content. Pretty simple, actually.

Some may view this as "more regulation" and state control. My answer is simply this - if information distribution is to this century what electric, natural gas, and highway networks were to the last, why does it make more sense now to allow unregulated private ownership of such an important public capability? Who's going to own the information economy?

Regulation of radio and television, railroads, electrical utilities was done for a reason. Up until now these cable communication networks have been able to argue against this same kind of logic applying to them. "Internet Neutrality" is a step towards the management of this information network in a way that is analogous to what was required for the earlier ones. For the sake of the future of this economy, I am hoping I am not the only one that sees this need.

YACC

It has to be understood that... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024959)

It has to be understood that Vidéoétron is a part of Québécor, the Rupert Murdoch of french media in Canada.

Canada, being a banana republic with snowploughs, has no stringent media ownership requirements, as the various liberal governments are in the pockets of media, and the rarer conservative governments are pro-business, so there is not real incentive to have laws geared towards protecting the people.

Québecor owns newspapers and a TV network, and it already discriminates against non-internet customers by blocking access to some of it's content (only Vidéoétron subscribers can access TV content for free, for example).

P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27025053)

I have a friend who is into the habit of downloading gigs of media by P2P and who then takes one look at it and throws it away. I think if you must throttle as an ISP with shitty uplinks then maybe P2P is not the worst thing you could throttle.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...