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!

CRTC Issues Net Neutrality Rules

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the play-fair-eh dept.

The Internet 184

An anonymous reader writes "The CRTC today introduced a new framework to guide Internet service providers in their use of Internet traffic management practices. ISPs will be required to inform retail customers at least 30 days, and wholesale customers at least 60 days, before an Internet traffic management practice takes effect. At that time, ISPs will need to describe how the practice will affect their customers' service. The Commission encourages ISPs to make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible. However, the Commission realizes that ISPs may need other measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times. Technical means to manage traffic, such as traffic shaping, should only be employed as a last resort."

cancel ×

184 comments

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

As someone living in Canada.. (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830025)

.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..

and of course.. FUCK!!

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830071)

Agreed -- Government copout, plain and simple.

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830127)

.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..

and of course.. FUCK!!

But how do you really feel.

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830193)

.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it...

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck..

and of course.. FUCK!!

But how do you really feel.

I suspect they may be holding something back... possibly some repressed displeasure...

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830479)

.. and I know this will get -1 troll.. but I have to say it... fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.. and of course.. FUCK!! But how do you really feel. I suspect they may be holding something back... possibly some repressed displeasure...

Help! Help! He's being repressed!

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831397)

But how do you really feel.

I really feel you should have ended that sentence with a question mark.

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830157)

the CRTC really proved who has the pants in the family.

effectively, the ruling says "all we have to do (as ISP's; and let's not forget there are really only 3 flavours here) is provide notice that we are doing...everything we are already doing, and can now do it in a more legitimized way. thanks CRTC, the cheque is in the mail."

this really doesn't bode well for any new competition in any communications arena, including cell phone services, as the only players are the one's mentioned above.

for anyone mentioning that 'they own the pipes, let them do what they want". the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved, they were not privately funded. at the same time, money provided via a service charges on all bills was to go into a further system upgrade. the money seems to have never made it, and the companies continued to charge the fee and pocket the money the entire time AFTER the goverment had told them to stop it. it finally took a supreme court decision (yep, they fought it the entire way) to force them to spend the money on more than just fresh decorating the their offices.

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830251)

I am surprised that no coverage on slashdot for this:
http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Details is on the site.

This is a online petition for Canadian who are dissatisfied with our CRTC. Currently there are 8495 signatures and need another 1505 to go before this petition is submitted to the minster in charge of the CRTC.

Contrary to the name, this petition is aimed at getting a new CRTC from people that cars about Canadians. It is not about removing it let things go to hell as it is already.

>The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) was created for the purpose of ensuring broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public and ensure that Canadians have a wide variety of options to create and view works of media or communicate across the country and the entire world.

>We, the undersigned, believe that the CRTC has become a burden on the Canadian public and are failing to perform their duties in the interest of the Canadian public and that of a fair and unbiased telecom policy.

Uhm, no (5, Informative)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830965)

Did you read the ruling?

ISPs don't get to throttle at a whim. They can throttle, but if they do, they have to demonstrate to the CRTC that the throttling is as narrow as possible to solve the problem and, importantly, economic measures like tiers, or building capacity would not solve the problem. They're also not allowed to throttle any protocol so hard as to effectively block it, or throttle things like VOIP without advanced, explicit permission for the CRTC.

That's a big improvement over the status quo at the moment, which has allowed the ISPs to throttle for years with no oversight for any reason they felt like.

Re:Uhm, no (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831229)

At a glance, the issue didn't appear to be very limiting.

"Traffic management practice" could include null routing or rate-limiting a flood source, or capping a link that a specific flooding event is coming from...

E.g. A bunch of customers with infected computers participating in an unexpected DDoS attack against a target outside their network, causing the ISP's backhauls or other interconnections to be saturated (and thus seriously impairing connectivity for customers).

So will ISPs be not allowed to mitigate DoS attacks if they cannot anticipate them within 90 days?

Will the customer whose PC got infected and got shutdown or rate-limited be able to take the matter to the CRTC and recieve renumeration, while fining the ISP for protecting the quality of service for their other subscribers?

Re:Uhm, no (2, Interesting)

ptaff (165113) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831383)

From Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657: (emphasis mine)

44. The Commission notes that Canadian ISPs have used certain ITMPs for the purposes of network security and integrity. Specifically, these ITMPs have been employed to protect users from network threats such as malicious software, spam, and distribution of illicit materials. In the Commission’s view, such activities are unlikely to trigger complaints or concerns under the Act and are a necessary part of an ISP’s network operations.

45. The Commission is therefore not addressing, in this decision, ITMPs used only for the purpose of network security, nor those employed temporarily to address unpredictable traffic events (e.g. traffic surges due to global events and failures on part of an ISP’s network) in order to protect network integrity.

I'm sorry, but I don't grok how a router can tell an IP packet has an illicit payload. Now wouldn't that be just what the ISP need to throttle any P2P protocol, in fact making all this “warn before you harm” policy moot?

Re:Uhm, no (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831429)

P2P (Legal or otherwise) are not a network security thread. So when they talk about network security they most likely talk about (d)dos attacks such as sym flood and similary attacks.

The smell of government corruption: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29831437)

What government says: "Blah, blah, blah... Let's pretend to the taxpayers we're doing something for them."

What government actually means: "Big companies can do exactly as they like, if they've contributed to the designated politicians."

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (4, Insightful)

lamapper (1343009) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831095)

the Canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks involved, they were not privately funded

Same here in the USA. Since the 1990s, it has been estimated that the Telcos (& Cable Companies) have received in excess of $200 Billion dollars, specifically for laying Fiber to yours and my home. None of which was done. The telcos made promises, in order to receive money + additional taxes on bills + additional fees on bills (many of which, if not all fees & taxes are still being collected) that they would put fiber to our homes.

Worth repeating, The telcos received American tax revenue to put fiber to our homes and apartments. They have been receiving this money since the 1990s. They still receive money today.

Where's the Fiber? (Think 80s Wendy's commercial, Where's the Beef? and you have the right idea)

In addition, they spend in excess of $1.8 million per week to lobby our elected officials against net neutrality, to prevent being forced to run fiber to our homes, to prevent losing their monopoly/oligopoly tiered pricing system, to prevent being forced to provide enough upstream bandwidth so that Americans can watch IP TV, Videos and "rich" content via the Internet. All because they want to force to you pay for content via their Cable system ONLY.

This has been going on for over 20+ years.

The telcos were asked to provide fiber to homes in Wilson N.C., but refused. Based on their refusal the local politicians decided to get fiber for their community and invited Greenlight into the community. Greenlight put fiber to people's homes and charged $100 per month for 100Mbps / 100Mbps (synchronous, not throttled) service to their customers.

The Cable Company / telco response was to lobby the state legislature in North Carolina in order to prevent Greenlight from doing business and to prevent other communities from providing decent fiber service to themselves. The public record is there for all to see. It started last session and will continue next session. Citizens of North Carolina, do something before its too late, let your politicians know that they need to force open the market and invite businesses in to put fiber all the way to people's homes. Nothing less is acceptable.

It's been 20+ years if American providers wanted you to have fiber you would have had it by now. Stop defending the FUD and them. They do not deserve anything but your contempt.

FIOS charges $119 for 50MB/5MB. At least its Fiber.

In Japan, they have had 100Mbps/100Mbps for less than $55 per month as of 2000, thanks to government deregulation of NTT and fiber to homes. (Americans would have had this had the telcos been prevented from watering down and making un enforceable, The "Telecommunications Act of 1996". The telcos lobbyists were very effective. One can only imagine the parties held at Cable Company / Telco boardrooms all across the country at putting one over on American citizens.)

In Japan, by 2006, those same consumers were getting 1 Gbps / 1 Gbps (again synchronous service, not throttled or shaped) for less than $52 per month. Unlike in America where politicians (primarily Republicans) keep touting Market competition, it actually exists in Japan, not here in America. In America corporate monopolies and oligopolies prevent competition.

If the market would or could work, it would have. Face facts Americans, the market is NOT working. We have a 20 year proof and history. Other markets that are not working are obvious as well...wake up Americans, its already too late!

One might ask how the Japanese could give more bandwidth to consumers while lowering prices at the same time.

Very good question as here in America, the telcos/cable companies try to lie and tell Americans that bandwidth is scarce. It is not. This is a lie, it is FUD. Just look at the conversations they have with investors to get the truth of the matter.

Here is the Answer: Many years ago (pre 2000) some very smart scientists discovered that they could multiplex laser light so that one strand of fiber, just one strand, can be increased from X1 to X1024. All you have to do is trade out the modem in the person's home for a new hardware device if you want to increase your customers bandwidth. It is that simple. Once fiber is in the ground, the largest cost is done. Maintenance is minimal when compared to the cost of laying the fiber optic cable. Its pretty much immune to lightning thus many large universities and companies have been interconnecting their buildings with fiber for years. None of this is new to those of us in the field, but consumers are kept as clueless as possible. If you understood the truth of how you are being taken advantage of, they would not be able to get away with it. You see with fiber, bandwidth is truly unlimited! Bandwidth scarcity is a myth, created by greedy businesses (Cable Cos / telcos) to raise your monthly rate for ever, even when it is economically unsound to raise rates, they do, can and state that fact to financial analysts. (They tell the analysts, "Look at what a great business we have, we can raise rates, bandwidth has gone down, not up and we can keep doing this forever, regardless of other economic uncertainties invest in us and we will give you a great return on your investment.) There is no other reason but GREED.

Do you like liars? They promised to Politicians (and through them to us, the tax payers) in the 1990s to give Americans fiber? And they quickly developed amnesia, forgot their promises, paid politicians to forget them also and raised American's monthly rates. Good for them, bad for everyone else. These companies should have honored their promise and put fiber to our homes. But they have not, they do not, they will not...and their 20+ year history, based solely on their inaction shows you all the proof you need to scream for political interdiction. Sorry shills, its been over 20 years, their actions, rather lack thereof speak volumes to all reasonable Americans!

Without politicians holding their feet to the fire, we will not have fiber in 10 years. This is hurting America, costing Americans jobs and opportunity. I call it un American. I call it shameful to treat the sons and daughters of American service men & women with such callous disrespect, many of whom gave their lives so their prodigy could be FREE. Even our founding fathers would be horrified at the Corporate tyranny that has become American business.

Everything we need to prevent this injustice is in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Force your politicians to enforce them, it works, but you must be vigilant and pay attention. If not you fail yourself and your family.

Start local. Talk to your friends to tell their friends, get a group together and get in your local politicians face and tell them that your community MUST HAVE FIBER TO HOMES (over the last mile) to compete in the global economy. It will cost money, but it will cost you so much more if you fail to get fiber to your homes. If they will not fix the problem, vote them out and put someone in office that will. Get people elected that care more about serving your local community than building a financial war chest to run for another office. It happened in Wilson N.C., though they are trying to legislate it away. It can happen in your area, do not take No for an answer. Your children and their children's future is literally at stake! Its about have access to resources, net neutrality, creating jobs, creating opportunities.

Take up the call a friend of mine used first and I repeat here freely,

Give me Fiber or give me death!

The survival of American families depends on this. Our ancestors fought for us to be FREE and that includes freedom from tyranny of any kind, religious, political, corporate, etc... As many before us have said, freedom comes with a price... left to the Cable companies that price will be $150 per month per customer for life with throttled, restricted, limited, unable to watch rich content because they want you to pay another $150 for that in addition to your Internet access and bandwidth capped to a level that guarantees you must pay additional charges.

One last thought about bandwidth caps, back in 2006 they knew the typical household will need a minimum of 300GB of bandwidth per month. I would suggest to you that the actual amount will be much higher than 300Gb of bandwidth per month. They knew this in 2006. What cap did they first recommend using: 50MB of bandwidth per month. Their intentions are clear by their actions not their words.

Wake up, pay attention and learn before its too late. You MUST have net neutrality! Without it you lose your freedom. You have to fight against over $1.8 million in lobbyist money per week (how much fiber would that put in the ground each week?) to keep you like mushrooms, in the crap and in the dark. Do not let them.

More importantly do not join the corporations against your own family, neighbors and friends. I say this, an avowed capitalist, if corporations are doing it wrong, there is a board of directors that should be held accountable. There are good companies out there, that care more about people than the bottom line. Granted most of these are private as public entities maximize share holder value, as it should be. If you do not like what a company is doing, stop purchasing goods and services from them. Make it cost them. When enough people are holding them accountable with their dollars, they will not have a choice but to take notice. It is not easy, it is not quick, but if you stick to your principles it will work. Just look at the number of counties across America that will NOT allow a big box store to open doors and kill local businesses. They are out there. The truth is out there. Now force your politicians to give you and your family what you need to not just survive, but to thrive! If you do not, its not me that will be holding you accountable, but your own children. Daddy, mommy, what did you do to make sure that things were better for us. Keep it simple. As for Internet Access....

Give me Fiber or give me death!

Re:Subsidies for ip networks in Canada (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29831239)

"the canadian taxpayer subsidized the development of the networks"

OK... I see this statement now and then but never with any support. Does anyone have a specific reference for direct subsidies to BELL, Shaw, Rogers, TELUS, etc from govts to build their IP networks?

The POTS/TDM side was rooted in the natural monopoly system which saw large revenues from long distance get fed back into building of infrastructure. We also, at one time, had government ownership in the public communications arena but that is long gone. I can't find a good reference to a similar situation with IP networks.

So forgive me if I am not using the correct search terms. Can anyone provide enlightenment?

Re:Subsidies for ip networks in Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29831325)

Ooops MTS and SaskTel are publicly owned. Maybe on the East coast as well.

Bell and TELUS are the two largest companies and both are private.

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830227)

You bitch, but its better than what you have now. Right now they don't have to even tell you.

This doesn't seem to preclude having a different law requiring it to be fair. This is just to make sure it is disclosed to you.

Well you put it best. (3, Informative)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830329)

I've been following this and there's really no difference to what telco/cablecos are doing right now. It's all spin factor you see:

"We're adding* protective measures* to ensure your regular* internet use* remains at high level of quality you've come to expect from Bellusawtron."

* at at additional $1.99/mo to your bill
* that prevent legitimate technology use that might be used for criminal/copyright infringrment purposes... like your computer
* Checking your @Bellusawtron.com email and browsing the telco/cableco news potal
* Which is 3-4 times per week for less than 30 minutes per session

Simply put, nothing's changed. Companies are now required to provide the spin letters they've been doing for years. Service is being fundamentally limited, but in a way that a majority of users won't understand relates to the message sent.

The funny/sad part is the fiber market has both improved and dropped in price tremendously with competition where I'm from, but just you try getting above a 1mbit connection to your home, or even a 1mbit who's QoS doesn't go to crap when you hit 60% usage.

-Matt

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29830569)

I also live in Canada
I'm unsure exactly what part you are so upset about?

Content blocking is completely prohibited. Filtering of 'time sensitive' traffic requires CRTC approval.

I also don't see in any way how you were modded as insightful.

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830777)

I'm unsure exactly what part you are so upset about?

The main thing I`m worried about is charge by usage.. which for the right amount of money and lobbying is a perfectly reasonable solution to network congestion.

I also don't see in any way how you were modded as insightful.

.. Totally agree.. for those keeping score at home:

    50% Insightful
    20% Informative
    20% Overrated

Re:As someone living in Canada... (1)

Informative (1347701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830887)

...we're always fucked up every orifice we've got, so there's no surprise here.

Re:As someone living in Canada.. (2, Insightful)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831061)

I trust you already contacted the CRTC and representatives in your area? Maybe made donations or volunteered for parties that oppose this? Perhaps started creating ways to convince the general population this is a bad idea?

Or did you just post 37 expletives and forget about it?

As an American, I'm sorry. (0, Troll)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831077)

If Bush were still president, we'd invade and liberate your country.

You have oil. Canada is the largest exporters of oil to the US [doe.gov] .

Aye! We, the USA, must invade Canada and bring Democracy to your backward ways and of course to pay for that liberation, we'll have to run your oil fields.

You know, it's just not as funny with Obama as President.

Ownership (0, Flamebait)

colganc (581174) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830031)

Why should anyone be required to do this. It is their pipes. They own it. They run it. They should be able to do what they want.

Re:Ownership (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830075)

"Their pipes" were built with government money.

As someone who pays taxes.. I expect the people who run the network I paid for to do so in a way that best serves me..

Re:Ownership -- not always (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830301)

Really? I sometimes consult with a small ISP and their pipes are their pipes. Their transit is a fiber connection put in by a large ISP.

Everything is just fine most of the time. The condo's are fed with large pipes. Some of the condo's that this ISP services have pure Ethernet switches with no rate limiting per port. It only takes one person will fire up their P2P program and suck up all the bandwidth to the building. No biggie I say. I don't really care until latency states taking a hit. The ISP doesn't care until they get a letter from one of the movie studios. It would be nice to de-prioritize P2P traffic so the people that just simply want to use their VoIP phone or browse the web don't have issues with high latency. Now the government has to get in the middle of this because the ISP has a couple of people that like to run their P2P programs during high traffic hours? Screw that!

Re:Ownership -- not always (1, Insightful)

Reapman (740286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830423)

Your argument might carry weight if you weren't AC and provided more then generic terms. For all I know your talking about your condo in Italy or Brazil.

Considering your talking about a small ISP that owns their own pipe's I'd wager your very much NOT in Canada.

Re:Ownership (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830979)

"Their pipes" were built with government money. As someone who pays taxes.. I expect the people who run the network I paid for to do so in a way that best serves me..

I hate that sense of entitlement attitude. Me me me and fuck everyone else.

Re:Ownership (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831007)

Me and everyone who's _not_ the telecommunication industry

Re:Ownership (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831071)

I'm not in telecommunications, and I don't share your attitude thank you very much.

Its a competition, not a government entity. The CRTC ruling doesn't change anything except make public the rules. If it's public, people will choose the supplier with more favourable rules, so eventually the free market will change things.

Re:Ownership (4, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830111)

Yes, just like the railroads in the 19th century that were paid for by the government. There's a reason we called the people who then refused to give any money back to the government or listen to government legislation about the railroads "robber barons." Fun fact: When this was going on, one of the strongest opponents of the robber barons was Ambrose Bierce whom you may know as the writer of an "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge" and "The Devil's Dictionary." If he were alive today he would likely be railing against this sort of poor treatment of net neutrality.

Re:Ownership (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830353)

Yes, just like the railroads in the 19th century that were paid for by the government. There's a reason we called the people who then refused to give any money back to the government or listen to government legislation about the railroads "robber barons." Fun fact: When this was going on, one of the strongest opponents of the robber barons was Ambrose Bierce whom you may know as the writer of an "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge" and "The Devil's Dictionary." If he were alive today he would likely be railing against this sort of poor treatment of net neutrality.

I am not fond of putting it this way, but it happens to be the truth. The robber-barons were successful for one reason and one reason alone: the government and the citizens didn't have the balls to do whatever it took to hold them accountable. They caved and they kow-towed. So the robber-barons were enriched, no one liked it, and no one did a damned thing about it.

Had the government instead revoked their corporate charters and sold all their assets at public auction for failure to comply with the legislation, we would all be telling a very different story. Even more so, if this had been accompanied by a widespread boycott of all rail services, with the intention not of reforming them, but of driving them into bankruptcy. I am not fond of it and I don't like it, but every now and then a message along the lines of "don't fuck with us" needs to be delivered. This seems perfectly acceptable when corporations take minors to court over copyright. I see no reason why the citizens should hold back and refuse to take every lawful action available to them to keep the corporations in check.

Re:Ownership (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831161)

I am not fond of it and I don't like it, but every now and then a message along the lines of "don't fuck with us" needs to be delivered. This seems perfectly acceptable when corporations take minors to court over copyright. I see no reason why the citizens should hold back and refuse to take every lawful action available to them to keep the corporations in check.

I could not agree more.

Re:Ownership (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830243)

They can, if they don't want the benefits associated with being a carrier, and they'll have to make it clear they aren't an 'ISP' or something like that so people are not confused by it.

Spineless CRTC (2, Interesting)

RedACE7500 (904963) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830039)

And of course the big ISPs get what they want, all they have to do is tell us first. How is this net neutrality?

Name reflects subject not position (3, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830061)

The same way the Sedition Act wasn't supporting sedition;(

And innovation takes another giant leap backwards.

Useless (5, Insightful)

foo fighter (151863) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830083)

ISPs will be required to inform retail customers at least 30 days, and wholesale customers at least 60 days, before an Internet traffic management practice takes effect.

Most locales have de facto ISP monopolies. This ruling will just give customers 30 days warning of a rape, with no practical way to avoid it. Arguably better in theory, but no different in practice.

Re:Useless (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830171)

Yes, and what fraction of customers are going to have a detailed understanding of what the letter means. They can barely understand that "world wide web" isn't synonymous with "internet" let alone understand what traffic shaping means. Indeed, many people might notice problems when they try to do things and not even realize why. This is the real danger of non-neutrality: websites and dowloads taking time and people not even understanding why. The end result: They won't go to those websites. They'll assume something is wrong with the website not something wrong with their ISP.

Re:Useless (1, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830357)

"world wide web" isn't synonymous with "internet"

my internet is netscape where do i get world wide web

Re:Useless (2, Interesting)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830629)

"world wide web" isn't synonymous with "internet"

my internet is netscape where do i get world wide web

how do i shot web?

The sad thing is, the last person I know who said something like that said it literal years ago. These days it's all "my internet is the blue e where do i get world wide web" or worse, "my facebook is the blue e where do i get internet"

Re:Useless (1)

shermo (1284310) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830579)

Honestly? I don't know the difference between WWW and the internet. I could guess, and I'd probably get close to correct, but how does it affect my every day browsing? I sure know what traffic shaping is though.

Re:Useless (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830839)

From Wikipedia...

The World Wide Web [wikipedia.org] is a system of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet. With a web browser, one can view Web pages that may contain text, images, videos, and other multimedia and navigate between them using hyperlinks.

Re:Useless (4, Funny)

butalearner (1235200) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830229)

You are quite entitled to make any protests in the appropriate time period. Provided, of course, you visit the unlit cellar with broken stairs at the ISP offices, where you can find the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

Re:Useless (1)

mftb (1522365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830595)

Wait hang on. ISPs are demolishing houses to lay down cables now?

Re:Useless (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830665)

You are quite entitled to make any protests in the appropriate time period. Provided, of course, you visit the unlit cellar with broken stairs at the ISP offices, where you can find the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

You got that far? Wow. I couldn't get past the Bengal tiger at first level support!

Re:Useless (1)

neflyte (466835) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830807)

"Well instead of a guard dog, they had dis bloody great big Bengal Tiger. I managed to take out the tiger with a can of mace, but the shopkeeper and his son, that's a different story altogether. I had to beat them to death with their own shoes."

Amazingly, Wayne's World II is relevant! (for about 2 seconds)

Re:Useless (2, Insightful)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831439)

At least it opens a debate.

A few months ago it was really unclear that the CRTC would ever lean ever so slightly in the direction of the consumer, all indicated the contrary. A previous preliminary ruling for Bell traffic shaping of its wholesalers gave almost all authority in the hands of Bell. I'm amongst what is I'm sure a lot of fellow Canadian slashdotters that petitioned against it.

Also remember that the CRTC is an old organization that is not very adapted nor flexible enough to take a real stand in modern communication issues. I find it better that they keep a cautious neutral stand in slight favor of openess, net-neutrality and of consumers rights than simply closing their eyes like they used to do in the past years.

At least from now on we won't discover shaping practices by pure random amateur discovery but we will be notified and will be able to fully protest. It also opens the debate in a language the media will be able to understand.

A good thing overall IMO - but we'll have to wait and see.

The Fix is In (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830089)

And the Internet Town Hall Meeting in Halifax NS October 26th apparently can't get any mainstream press interest. Gee, guess there's nothing to see here, move along citizen, etc. Net Neutrality is getting covered there.

Re:The Fix is In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830159)

And the Internet Town Hall Meeting in Halifax NS October 26th apparently can't get any mainstream press interest. Gee, guess there's nothing to see here, move along citizen, etc. Net Neutrality is getting covered there.

The press is interested primarily in victims who need to be rescued, perferably by the police or the legislature. Citizens who get involved and take their greviances directly to their communities and relevant parties (such as the ISPs) to seek redress are not victims. Watch the news sometime. You can watch hour after hour and never see any stories about anyone who stands up for themselves and refuses to be screwed over. That's because this is not a mentality they wish to encourage. It might bring about social change if the rabble start getting uppity. It might change the status quo, and the status quo has been very good to the media companies.

Once you accept that the various for-profit media conglomerates tend to reinforce each other by acting in their common interests, you can detect that there is an agenda common to all of them. Once you are aware that such an agenda exists, you can look for patterns in the stories presented: both what IS presented and glorified and what is NOT presented or is downplayed. You can then see a subtle undercurrent, a unifying concept that explains each one of these patterns. That unifying concept has nothing to do with Right vs. Left, or Democrat vs. Republican. It has everything to do with a society that has been increasingly regimented and under central planning and control for the last hundred years or more, and with the need that such a society has for arbiters of information. The media is not your friend.

Re:The Fix is In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29830919)

I sent Representative Steve King a letter about Net Neutrality and got a form letter back about having to pay state sales tax on internet purchases. His people obviously have no idea what the main idea behind Net Neutrality is or they've been lobbied into submission. Sad that such ignorant people are in charge of such things.

Re:The Fix is In (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29830953)

no, it just that the same poeple that own the 3 major ISPs in Canada happen to also control TV, radio and newspapers.

typical (0, Flamebait)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830155)

Technical means to manage traffic, such as traffic shaping, should only be employed as a last resort

And in this world, that means FIRST RESORT and STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.

Gutless gutless worthless CRTC.

"Hey CRTC! Thanks for condemning Canada to third rate connectivity. Chintzing on the bandwidth saves the provider money - they have no incentive to provide better access, and since most people are tied into multi-year deals with their phone or cable service, a 30-day notice is fucking bullshit.

FUCK CRTC and FUCK ROGERS and FUCK BELL CANADA. You people suck great steaming tourdes out of my butthole you greedy pathetic scum sucking freaks.

Next question?

What real alternatives are there around here (Canada)?

RS

Re:typical (1)

ubercam (1025540) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830573)

MTS is not bad, but you have to live in Manitoba. We live in a small town about 30km from Winnipeg and we get 8/1 DSL. In the city it's a bit better upload, but it sure beats dial-up or satellite, because there's really nothing else out here (aside from a couple fixed wireless providers). Luckily they don't seem to give a shit what you download or how much. This month I've burned through 56gb downloading about 30-40 torrents. They seem to be acting like a "dumb pipe" which is great for me. No caps, no throttling that I've noticed. Unlike Shaw (their only direct competitor), they don't seem to cap or throttle.

However, MTS does have a telephone line monopoly in Manitoba. Not long ago it was a Crown Corporation, but it was privatized in 1996 I think. They could be jerks if they wanted to I guess, but I suspect a good chunk of their customers might jump ship to Shaw for phone, internet and TV. Shaw is too much of a competitor in every area except cellular for them to really start floundering around and doing stupid shit.

Also, as far as I know, MTS doesn't allow anyone else to offer DSL (à la local loop unbundling) so there is no Teksavvy & co. here just yet, but I suspect that may happen at some point.

Re:typical (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830849)

sounds cool. I'm in Tronno...

Re:typical (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831167)

Videotron?

Okay, I'm kidding. I keep hearing about a nice local ISP in Toronto, forgot their name. I know Montreal and Southern Quebec has CoopTel which isn't too predatory.

Re:typical (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831335)

Teksavvy is the name.

Re:typical (1)

thebigmacd (545973) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831467)

AFAIK their DSL traffic is routed over Bell's infrastructure...just like virtually all third-party providers.

Re:typical (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29831517)

Bah, at least Videotron has fast Internet. They're just as big crooks as Bell and Rogers, but they give faster net. It's better than nothing?

Re:typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29831371)

You forget a FUCK TELUS in your rant. Telus is truly scum. Absolutely the worst customer service ever.

Telus sucks. It's true!

Last resort (5, Insightful)

darthwader (130012) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830165)

We tried positive visualization, prayer beads, and yelling really loud at the routers. Nothing worked. I guess we'll have to implement traffic shaping now.

Re:Last resort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830255)

"Pissed off now, Joboo. Look, I go to you. I stick up for you. You no help me now, I say f*** you, Joboo, I do it myself." - Pedro

Re:Last resort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29830451)

The rest of us could try kerosene and flame.

Re:Last resort (2, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830475)

Presumably, if that is actually written into the law, then it means that traffic shaping could never be used. After all, there is always something that could be done prior to a last resort. It's like that phrase "best efforts". I suppose now we'll see the ISPs hiring hit squads to silence zealous users as a possible recourse prior to traffic shaping.

Re:Last resort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29830663)

You forgot a few steps (at least for US-based ISPs):

1) Add more subscribers
2) Whine to congress about not enough bandwidth for subscriber-count
3) Get government handouts
4) Profit!!!
5) Pretend to upgrade network
6) Raise rates (ya know, for all the "upgrades")
7) Profit!!!
8) goto 1

Shaping vs Crippling (5, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830175)

An ISP would therefore need to seek the Commission's approval before it implemented a practice that would:

        * block the delivery of content to an end-user, or
        * slow down time-sensitive traffic, such as videoconferencing or Internet telephone (Voice over Internet Protocol) services, to the extent that the content is degraded.

So ISPs can't slow down time-sensitive traffic without prior approval by the CRTC, but there's no restrictions on slowing down other kinds of traffi, perhaps even to the point where the link is useless without being completely blocked? That's exactly the reason why I fear traffic shaping. Far too often it's used as a way to cripple people's connections rather than provide clients with true "quality of service".

Re:Shaping vs Crippling (1)

jvillain (546827) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830259)

I am usually the first to bash the CRTC but this time I think they got it right. You could go into super detail but then any one can find a loop hole they can exploit. Or you can just put out a blanket statement that says knock it off and then the CRTC who are law maker as well as judge and jury can then interpret it any way they want.

Re:Shaping vs Crippling (1)

thule (9041) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830337)

Could you publish the list of ISP's that cripple people's connections? That would be good information to know. I personally have not heard of any ISP's in the US that have completely cut off specific protocols. Lowering the priority of P2P connections doesn't count if the P2P app continues to function.

Re:Shaping vs Crippling (2, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830415)

I don't have a list of ISPs, but I've read several posts by ISP employees (on a public forum that caters to ISPs) discussing and even bragging about crippling P2P applications and doing so in a way that leads users to believe the problem is with the peer's connection rather than the client's connection.

Re:Shaping vs Crippling (1)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831471)

I think that had more to do with a company hired by movie studios to kill P2P networks.

Re:Shaping vs Crippling - I have a great idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830375)

How about if a new p2p protocol was developed which embedded a time sensitive video feed into every packet (only a few bytes in each packet - make the video feed 10x10 pixels @ 20 fps or something). The rest of the packets could then be devoted to transmitting actual useful data. At 1 time sensitive video byte per 500 byte packet, that should guarantee about 1 Mb/s throughput.
Best part is that way the ISPs would need approval to degrade it (which they would no doubt get considering how useless the CRTC is, but at least it could slow them down).

What I expect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830195)

Notification from your ISP: We are screwing you. You have 60 days to find a better ISP, oh wait we are the only one that offers a high speed connection in your area so you have no choice but to take it.

How is warning given? (4, Interesting)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830201)

How is warning given? One of my links at home is through shaw.ca, and the killer is that customer support can't email you at anything but a shaw.ca email address (I asked about an outage and was told an email was sent about the planned maintenance, I asked what address they had for me on file, they said none so I tried to give them kurt@seifried.org and they said sorry, we can't enter that into the system, it has to be a shaw.ca address). I suspect warning will consist of a printed notice being placed in a filing cabinet with a sign saying "beware the leopard" on the front of it. The reality is that most large ISP's in North America are going to screw customers as much as possible and reduce infrastructure development due to short sighted accounting practices (rather than take a long term approach that would benefit customers and their bottom line ultimately). Case in point: my shaw cablemodem service is only twice as fast when I first signed up about 10 years ago, and that's with bandwidth caps in place.

Re:How is warning given? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830271)

in a filing cabinet with a sign saying "beware the leopard"

Well, at least its not locked, and in a disused lavatory in the basement where the lights and stairs have gone.

Re:How is warning given? (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830501)

Yeah I couldn't remember the whole shtick, to bad one can't edit posts like reddit.

Re:How is warning given? (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831009)

(rather than take a long term approach that would benefit customers and their bottom line ultimately)

Where's the goddamn Japanese when you need them! They operate in the long term. They'd show'em! If the ISPs dont' get it, well fuck'em! Just have a look at Detroit.

Wait a minute....

Re:How is warning given? (2, Informative)

PFAK (524350) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831227)

You can forward shaw.ca e-mail addresses to your personal email elsewhere.

Thank you, CRTC (5, Insightful)

yamfry (1533879) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830205)

We appreciate that you are encouraging the incumbent oligopolists to "make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible" by providing them with an incentive to do the exact opposite. I guess that's what happens when friends regulate friends.

30/60 days (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830217)

Well it's a little more than just a 30/60 day notification. They have to demonstrate to the CRTC that they have tried everything and still had to resort to traffic shaping in order to maintain quality of service.

One of the simple recommendations was to charge higher rates for high bandwith consumption. This isn't a blow for Net Neutrality but at the same time, they're not allowed to throttle for the next 30/60 days. Smaller ISPs will have to find other ways of competing other than offering unlimited bandwith for peanuts. It sucks but at least they have some avenues to pursue.

Amazing.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830223)

The US and Canada are so far behind in internet infrastructure it's pathetic. I forget the report I read recently but it said somthing like it would take 10 years or more for us to upgrade our infrastructure to even come close to Malaysia, South Korea, and Japan.

Many of these ISP's were subsidized by the government (at least in the USA) in agreement that they would upgrade their infrastructure so we could be on par with the rest of the world technologically. Many of our tax dollars paid for this 'upgrade' but in the end we got nothing. It is one of the biggest overlooked schemes ever.

The idea that traffic shaping should even be considered is total crap. North America should already have the infrastructure to handle the traffic at speeds far beyond what we're used to. I smell another 20 years of slow very incrimental speed increases all while we are sucked dry $49.00 a month for "High speed internet!! 50 times faster than dialup!!!!! Can't you believe that?? 50 times faster than DIALUP!"

Re:Amazing.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830257)

Many of our tax dollars paid for this 'upgrade' but in the end we got nothing.

Just like the majority of other tax funded initiatives of this nature. This is a prime example of why giving tax money to companies to perform private sector projects is a bad idea. The sad thing is that many of the current social programs on the table would increase this cash flow. We need for the government to stay the fuck out of private industry as a backer. It doesn't work.

It is one of the biggest overlooked schemes ever.

You must be new to politics. This is just another example, certainly nowhere close to the biggest.

Re:Amazing.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29831147)

Malaysia: 220 people/sq mile
Japan: 870 people/sq mile
South Korea: 1260 people/sq mile

US: 80 people/sq mile
Canada: 7.8 people/sq mile

Re:Amazing.. (2, Informative)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831189)

London, ON to Quebec, QC corridor: roughly 200 people per square mile, half the country's population.

Most of the population in the West is on the southern border, also in dense zones.

Re:Amazing.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29831275)

Vancouver CANADA: 5,335 people/sq km
Machida JAPAN: 5,772 people/sq km

There are too many to choose from, but city densities are not quite so skewed.

Elections (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830291)

Did this happen because I voted Conservative? Or, put another way, would this have happened if the Liberals were in power?

Re:Elections (2, Funny)

biggknifeparty (618904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830699)

You voted Conservative? Yes, it's your fault my Internet sucks, jerk.

Re:Elections (1)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830989)

Did this happen because I voted Conservative? Or, put another way, would this have happened if the Liberals were in power?

The liberals stated [liberal.ca] their support of net neutrality earlier in the year.

Re:Elections (1)

uniquegeek (981813) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831509)

And an article link posted (from the National Post?) a few months ago on here mentioned it was the liberals who actually put it on the table in the first place, while they were in power.

In general:

It takes more than one party to enable this nonsense. Last year after Geist brought this to our attention, there were a lot of knee-jerk reactions of "evil Conservatives". Get real and use your brain, people. This is not a single party issue. So many people were waving around their single-coloured flags (red or blue) so hard they forgot to actually deal with the freaking issue.

Furthermore, anyone desperate to get back into power can promise anything they like (like reducing GST... which didn't happen until only a couple years ago...). This is the case for ANY party.

The reason I am in sciences instead of politics is because I never had any interest in playing the same childish junior high verbal games over and over again... or at least, not having it take up the majority of my day. I couldn't abide being that useless. On the other hand, if you like the science of bullshit, get into politics.

Re:Elections (1)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831513)

both parties are garbage. You have to take the garbage out now and then or it really starts to stink. The liberals got too smelly.

It shouldn't matter what party is in power when the CRTC makes decisions? I suppose the CBC should also be neutral instead of having a liberal slant as well.

I haven't read the ruling but it sounds like it is all you can expect. Some traffic *is* more important than other traffic and some people pay a premium for faster/lower latency connections.

At least the telcos aren't allowed to deliberately slow down VOIP

Blocking access? (1)

DeHackEd (159723) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830355)

Hypothetical scenario: an ISP is under DDoS attack originating from some fixed foreign IP. Since it becomes impossible to "block access" without CRTC approval, does that mean the ISP has to take it like a bitch while waiting from the OK to have it blackholed? What about any other kinds of attacks? What about Spam filtering?

I really don't think the CRTC really understands the issue. I should know, I listened to some of the public hearings a few months back.

Disclaimer: I work for an affected ISP.

Re:Blocking access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29831433)

Hypothetical scenario: I pay for internet connectivity. I don't want "unlimited" to mean there is actually a cap hidden in the fine print. I don't want speeds that are "x Mbps" to mean maybe on a good day but mostly not. I certainly don't want ISPs deciding which bits I will get and which I won't.

Disclaimer: I am a paying customer. Treat me as one.

traffic shaping as a last resort? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29830393)

by last resort they mean the first thing you do, right?

Business as usual (1)

GrBear (63712) | more than 3 years ago | (#29830407)

They're already traffic shaping, this just gives them an official OK..

Business as usual folks, nothing to see here.

First use noted: Geist sites unreachable! (4, Funny)

Obstin8 (827030) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830589)

Can't reach _any_ Michael Geist sites (from either my cable and DSL conns). Coincidence? I think not!!!

I'd like to see the CRTC come down hard on them (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830681)

Just once.

And if the ISPs bitch too much, saying it's no longer profitable, then have the gov appropriate the "infrastructure upgrades" we paid for, and lease their use. Send 'em a bill for upgrade cash that wasn't spent on the network.

Shaping traffic might be necessary... (3, Interesting)

willy_me (212994) | more than 4 years ago | (#29830813)

But ISPs should be required to validate the shaping. ISPs should be required to provide a web interface to allow users to see if shaping took place. The amount of shaping, what traffic was shaped, and why it was required should also be provided upon request. And overall statistics should be posted to ensure that the ISPs do not rely on shaping as a replacement for infrastructure investment (typically funded by the government).

Without this information there is no way to keep the ISPs honest. So require that is is available. And the legal right for an ISP to shape traffic should be preserved just in case it is occasionally required.

As is stands, this is not required. Net neutrality just died in Canada.

Why does the army care? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831149)

Really, why would the U.S. Army's Cold Regions Test Center [army.mil] give a rat's ass about net neutrality?

 

 

 

(aka: Watch when you use acronyms. U.S.-centric acronyms are one thing, /. readers are used to it, but non-U.S. acronyms will be completely mis-construed by a vast majority of /.ers.)

Re:Why does the army care? (2, Insightful)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831181)

You're the first to do it, and bringing up an obscure sub department of Army R&D is very very stretching it.

No big pipe protection? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831233)

"Primary ISPs generally submitted that for this reason, ITMPs designed to address congestion that are applied to their retail
services must also be applied to wholesale services provided to secondary ISPs."

Why could they not move to protect the ISP's who buy pipe space, best effort or dedicated bandwidth.
So the Canadian gov can protect real bandwidth to paying customers ie other smaller regional or national ISP's.
What a smaller regional ISP does with a pipe is of no real interest to a telco, the pipe is in place and if the ISP packs it, up and down , they paid for it.
What the national networks do to their locked in consumers on their own networks is fine print.
But to get a free pass to shape ISP's pipes must have taken some 'gifts'.

ISPs best get notices about spam filtering out (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831255)

I suppose it's especially important that they reveal to customers they participate in the traffic management practice called "Spam and virus Filtering" or "Bulk Mail filtering", including references to such things as spam folders, deletion/quarantine, etc, etc.

Otherwise, I see spammers going straight to the CRTC and raising complaints against ISPs for blocking or degrading their network performance (ability to deliver spam e-mail to their customers).

A similar issue exists for other types of internet abusers (that the ISP may blackhole or block access from to customers, for whatever reason)

Rulings in favor of Net Neutrality don't just benefit content providers that customers want access to/from.

The bad guys (even the ones offering spam, malware, viruses, adware, scams, etc) are content providers also

damn you! (1)

gh0stee (1078527) | more than 4 years ago | (#29831503)

wtf, I submitted this article like 10 hrs before this! Bastard!
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>