16 ms·

As the U.S. Retreats, Canada Doubles Down on Net Neutrality

214 points by colinprince 9y ago

basicplus2 9y ago
The rest of the world needs to bypass the US with its internet routing.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  At least China is doing that.
  - joecool1029 9y ago
    More than just them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable
    - mc32 9y ago
      >"[T]here is a growing wariness among the BRICS countries that when their data traffic goes through hubs in Europe or the United States, it incurs a greater 'risk of potential interception...'" I don't know how they square that given it goes though Russia, China, India etc... as if those three neither had snooping capability nor wanted to be able to snoop.
      - gozur88 9y ago
        Also, while it may drive up the price a little, the idea the NSA won't be able to tap into worldwide internet just because the bits don't travel through the US is naive.
        suyash 9y ago
        No security solution is full proof but it's a step in the right direction.
        mc32 9y ago
        How is that a 'step in the right direction' for privacy? The whole proposition is preposterous. Russia, India and China all are known to monitor their citizens comms as a matter of course. It's not even hidden or prefaced. If anything, this makes it easier for those countries to intercept their own citizens' comms --which is probably their whole intent.
        justicezyx 9y ago
        At least you make sure that they are no monitored by US, in addition to their own government. TBH, I am so disappointed with US government: * Cannot take care of its own people * Initiated wars and instability all over the world * Cannot find the right leader * Spying on anyone and everyone What a fucked-up government...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- topmonk 9y ago
  Why don't they just make their ISP's filter access to US sites or anyone else that doesn't support Net Neutrality? Oh, wait..
junkscience2017 9y ago
before you get too excited...this is the same country that mandates that some % of TV and radio content be "Canadian"
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  That's all ok you see. Forcing culture is fine if it's our culture. But if an American says he supports USA, you can damn well be sure he's a "fucking American imperialist pig".
  - thg 9y ago
    I don't see other nations (trying to) force their culture, views and laws on everyone outside their nation.
    - adventured 9y ago
      > I don't see other nations (trying to) force their culture, views and laws on everyone outside their nation. British, Russian, German, Spanish, Japanese, Italian, Egyptian, Saudi, Chinese and French history would like a word with you. The only difference between nations that do and don't push such, is their ability to: those that have been able to, without exception, have done so throughout recorded history.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  they dont have content neutrality yet. France has the same issues with public media.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  It has something to do with being flooded with American content and perspectives. You see, it's been understood here for some time what kind of effect media can have on a population. This seems to be something America is just coming to terms with, regarding organizations like Sinclair. It's been Canada's struggle for some time to maintain an identity in the face of some kind of ideological imperialism. Manifest Destiny is still fresh on Canadian minds, and non-points like this implying some kind of tyranny are grossly mal-informed. Our CRTC who made that ruling is the same CRTC who is ensuring net neutrality and mandating performant broadband internet as a basic telecom service. Things the FCC just thought not worth protecting for Americans. edit: To clarify myself a bit: This is an impassioned subject for me. I think the US is a great nation—but implying something nefarious about Canadians' attempt at self-preservation, while residing next to a federation like the US, is incomprehensible.
Jerry2 9y ago
Yet even with the NN, Canadians still pay the highest Internet and mobile charges in the world! [0] They are more taxed than anyone and they still have severe bandwidth caps. Given how their market is ruled by very few large companies, NN is a moot point for them since they pay through the nose anyway. They have no competition and that's a bigger issue. Their politicians always like to pat themselves on the back and are trying to present Canadian situation as better than the US all the time. But the reality is not so clear cut. [0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-canadas-internet-wireless-rates-compare-with-international-prices/article31379589/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-canad...
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Do you think that Net Neutrality is about cost? If so, you are misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is. Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readily available on the subject.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Its not about cost but if internet access is expensive or constrained in bandwidth it severly limits its utility.
    - tjoff 9y ago
      It doesn't. At all. If anything it makes it even worse, where prioritizing one type of data has an even bigger impact and can quickly cement the presence of companies such as facebook and obliterate any competitors.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        > It doesn't. At all. Not At all? Are you sure? Ever tried to use video streaming services when your bandwidth is capped at 10 Gb per month?
        9y ago
smsm42 9y ago
What NN has to do with "freedom of speech, equality and diversity"? The whole article sounds like a bunch of duckspeak, repeating slogans without almost any actual informational content. Wait, no, I'm wrong, there's one: Canadian NAFTA negotiators have indicated that they support inclusion of a net neutrality provision within the agreement’s new digital trade chapter. What this means? That Canada would require US to create certain regulations as a condition for signing NAFTA? Wouldn't it be kinda presuming - telling US which laws they have? I mean, Canada can have any regulations they want, NN or not, that's their business, but what this has to do with US and NAFTA?
- nekopa 9y ago
  I think the US is probably the most likely to require negotiating parties to change laws to benefit them, and because the US negotiates from a position of strength most countries have to bow down to it.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights. So you may no longer be able to search for an abortion clinic, or newspapers that have negative articles about the government could be blocked, internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited, etc. While I think that's an unlikely outcome, it would be devastating to free speech, equality, and diversity.
  - notdonspaulding 9y ago
    > The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights That's not an argument. > So you may no longer be able to search for an abortion clinic, or newspapers that have negative articles about the government could be blocked, internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited, etc. None of these hypotheticals are being seriously contemplated as potential outcomes of the FCC relinquishing its Title II authority over ISPs. Let's focus on the likely outcomes, not the unlikely ones.
wyck 9y ago
Is that why there is a virtual monopoly on internet connections and mobile options in Canada, and why Canadians pay some of the highest rates in the world for connectivity? Is this why Canadians only have one central news source, is the CRTC a bastion of freedom now all of a sudden? They do such a great job controling television and radio, let's trust them with the internet.
- DKnoll 9y ago
  There is more than one 'central news source' here. CP24 gets more play than CBC in my neck of the woods.
- dglass 9y ago
  This is exact what people don't realize would have happened in the US if net neutrality was kept in place. Classifying ISPs as title II would require them to apply for broadcasting licenses just like television and radio must do. What's the problem with that? Since they can't operate without a broadcasting license, the government can now threaten to revoke their license if they do not comply. The government would be able to strong arm these ISPs to remove anything they deemed as unfavorable content or propaganda (fake news?). Nationalizing the internet is not what we want here. The FCC's main responsibility is to regulate interstate communication. The FTC's responsibility is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of anticompetitive business practices, such as coercive monopoly. The FTC has much greater power to fight for consumer protections if the ISPs begin throttling, creating fast lanes, pricing tiers, etc. The US's media machine has also consolidated, along with ISPs becoming content producers themselves and bordering monopoly status. The FCC just a few days ago announced they will work with the FTC to "return jurisdiction to the FTC to police the conduct of ISPs, including with respect to their privacy practices." [0] Basically the FTC has more power to prevent and break up monopolies. By repealing net neutrality the FCC is saying they will hear consumers concerns and work with FTC to prevent ISPs from hurting consumers, because the FCC alone does not have the power to do that. It's also preventing the US government from forcing ISPs to comply by threatening to revoke their broadcasting license. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/ftc-fcc-outline-agreement-coordinate-online-consumer-protection https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/ftc-f...
miguelrochefort 9y ago
Canadians already pay the highest fees in the world for internet access. Regulation is only going to make it more difficult for competition to emerge. The solution to most of problems is competition, not regulation.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Let's be direct about what this "regulation" is. Any action against net neutrality is action against customers. There is no value in removing net neutrality regulation, and it will have no effect on competition. Just because something can be described using the same noun does not give it the same meaning, value, or effect. One (not "the") solution to this problem is competition. Since that competition does not exist, we resort to another solution.
  - miguelrochefort 9y ago
    > Any action against net neutrality is action against customers. How did you reach that conclusion? It's like saying "Any action against all-you-can-eat buffets is action against customers". Do you believe in pay neutrality, search results neutrality, store catalog neutrality, journal opinion neutrality, etc? How about Tesla making superchargers free to Tesla cars only? The world is not neutral, and that's completely fine. I don't see why it should be different for ISPs. If lack of options is the problem then all of our focus should be put toward making the field more competitive, not solidify and demotivate existing monopolies by dictating their business model. I'm sure Net Neutrality is motivated by good intentions, but I can't see any long-term benefits to it.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Net Neutrality itself is an ideal. It is distinct from any regulation enforcing it. Net Neutrality means the internet itself is a free market. > How did you reach that conclusion? I haven't heard a single point to the contrary, and yes, I have asked several times in several places for one. The only statements I have heard against net neutrality regulation are against its being regulation, and nothing else. The only parties with something to gain from a non-neutral internet are ISPs. That gain comes at the cost of abusing customers, to varying degrees. Your original comment was lamenting the current lack of competition between ISPs. Can I take that to mean you believe in free markets? Well, the internet itself is a market, and currently free (as in freedom) for the vast majority of its users. There are many obvious advantages to this. That freedom depends on users' ability to use it however they want to. Clearly any constraint on the use of the internet goes against that freedom. For ISPs who want to increase profits rather than improve infrastructure, a non-neutral internet is clearly a way to do that, allowing for new sources of revenue, and the right to blame customers who use more bandwidth for "using the internet wrong", rather than themselves for not having built the necessary infrastructure. Clearly, such actions are to the detriment of customers. That brings us to the regulation part of Net Neutrality regulation. Bad actors - in this case, ISPs who would rather abuse customers than help them - need a significant reason to do otherwise, usually financial. There are two clear reasons we can give them: 1. A free market. With competition, customers can choose the provider to support, giving ISPs a financial reason not to abuse customers. 2. Regulation. If it is illegal to abuse customers, and that law is enforced, ISPs have a fiscal reason not to abuse customers. Since we do not have a free market with competition between ISPs, the clear choice is regulation. If that point ever changes, I will be totally fine with removing the regulation, albeit my own (potentially unpopular) opinion. Like any other Libertarian, I am very skeptical of regulation. Before I accept the notion of something being regulated, I am concerned with why it is needed, what alternatives there are, and what detriment that regulation will have. So far, I have lined out why we need net neutrality regulation, what alternative there is, and why it is not currently viable, leaving me with what detriment the regulation itself will have. After careful consideration, I cannot find any detriment to net neutrality regulation. The idea that this specific regulation will hurt free market competition, which Ajit Pai claimed as his reason for removing the regulation, is not only nonsense: it is malicious.
H99189 9y ago
Let's please focus on breaking up ISP Monopolies, NN-like effects would be achieved, and much more, by doing so.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Let's do both! It's clear that we need regulation until there is sufficient competition, so why get rid of regulation before competition exists?
  - notdonspaulding 9y ago
    > "It's clear that we need regulation until there is sufficient competition..." I don't think it's as "clear" as you seem to think it is. What does seem to be a matter of historical fact is that the FCC has never been an organization which has had an interest in, or been able by fiat to, increase competition in the telecommunications industry. The US basically went for the entire 20th century with a heavily-regulated, government-enabled, monopolistic telecom network (AT&T, Verizon landline systems & DSL). The parts of the internet which have seen investment, growth, and improvement over the last 30 years? Yup, the unregulated, non-common-carrier networks (cable and fiber). > "why get rid of regulation before competition exists?" Because lowering barriers-of-entry into a market is exactly the best way to encourage competition in any industry. Before anyone starts an ISP (or any other business), they consider the costs of doing so vs. the expected payoff if they succeed. Regulatory compliance (especially FCC common-carrier compliance) is an added cost of doing business which absolutely could be enough to keep a business from starting up. You don't need NN to get telcos to behave. When did Comcast lower their prices and up their speeds? When Google Fiber came to town. When did Google Fiber come to town? When they got the municipality to remove as many barriers-to-entry as they could
    - convolvatron 9y ago
      what if its always more profitable to provide internet packages rather than equal access bits-are-bits service. even with several providers can you guarantee that at least one of them will charge flat rate or per bit rather than by content? the cost of regulatory compliance in this case isn't an additional fixed cost like .. properly disposing of waste products, but avoiding business models that constrain and restrict access. an internet where my usage - outside the question of compensating for last mile infrastructure and transit fees with a reasonable profit - is curated by some product management group solely interested in extracting the maximum profit from me and upstream services I might be using, isn't really an internet at all but cable television. and if we're just talking about cable television, I can probably learn to live without the wealth of internet entertainment options I have today..but if you hack off the long tail and undermine the general free exchange of information because it isn't sufficiently interesting from a business perspective to my regional provider, you've lost something quite substantial just so someone else can make a buck. maybe I'm in the minority, but as much as I enjoy having gigabit access, I would take an unrestricted 1Mb over a carefully controlled 1Gb in a heartbeat.
microcolonel 9y ago
I don't know what issue this could possibly address. Canada's problem is access and sometimes lack of available competition, not neutrality. I'm in a place where two of the major ISPs serve, and I have a gigabit downlink for not a huge amount of money, but just a few blocks away it's possible you only have one (DSL-only) provider who will barely sell you 20mb/s for the same. All of this is basically complete historical accident relating to deployment of cable TV.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  The US is very much the same, just more geographically diverse.
- SuperPaintMan 9y ago
  We have a tenth of the US population and are slightly larger in size. My province alone is twice the size of California with a population of one million people. Infrastructure is a gong show when it comes to profitability. In my province many areas are served by one provider, simply because it is not profitable to run infrastructure out to these areas. Near more populated areas there is more competition and major providers however. Hell, the only reason they have connections in the first place is because the provider was run and funded by the provincial government.
golemiprague 9y ago
That's why the tech industry thrived in the silicon valley and not in Canada. The lack of regulation made the internet what it is, if it was up to Canada we would still deliver bit and bites in punch cards delivered by union members with certificate to cary punch cards in a format approved by the government. I would leave net "neutrality" to the Canadians but would like to adopt their immigration policy if possible please.
brailsafe 9y ago
Our biggest advocacy group Open Media would say otherwise. Our regulations are constantly under threat by the big ~3 telecom companies. https://openmedia.org/en/ca https://openmedia.org/en/ca Edit: Maxime Bernier, in his tweet, creates a false dichotomy between government regulation and more competition. Yes we need more competition, but no we don't need less regulation unless that regulation is a major contributor to getting started. Now granted, I don't know a lot about getting started in telecom, but I suspect there isn't legislation in place that actively discourages new players.
acidtrucks 9y ago
Are Canadian vpn services subject to NN regulations?
codecamper 9y ago
Sorry.. why is net neutrality even an issue? The moment a big operator tries to increase fees for faster speeds, customers will move to an operator that does not do those things. New technology will provide higher speeds at lower cost. So why does it matter to have net neutrality laws? An problematic issue that tech might focus on would be to solve the problem of overconsumption of energy by cryptocurrencies.

214 points by colinprince 9y ago

basicplus2 9y ago

The rest of the world needs to bypass the US with its internet routing.

justicezyx 9y ago
At least China is doing that.
- joecool1029 9y ago
  More than just them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable
  - mc32 9y ago
    >"[T]here is a growing wariness among the BRICS countries that when their data traffic goes through hubs in Europe or the United States, it incurs a greater 'risk of potential interception...'" I don't know how they square that given it goes though Russia, China, India etc... as if those three neither had snooping capability nor wanted to be able to snoop.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      Also, while it may drive up the price a little, the idea the NSA won't be able to tap into worldwide internet just because the bits don't travel through the US is naive.
      - suyash 9y ago
        No security solution is full proof but it's a step in the right direction.
        mc32 9y ago
        How is that a 'step in the right direction' for privacy? The whole proposition is preposterous. Russia, India and China all are known to monitor their citizens comms as a matter of course. It's not even hidden or prefaced. If anything, this makes it easier for those countries to intercept their own citizens' comms --which is probably their whole intent.
        justicezyx 9y ago
        At least you make sure that they are no monitored by US, in addition to their own government. TBH, I am so disappointed with US government: * Cannot take care of its own people * Initiated wars and instability all over the world * Cannot find the right leader * Spying on anyone and everyone What a fucked-up government...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
topmonk 9y ago
Why don't they just make their ISP's filter access to US sites or anyone else that doesn't support Net Neutrality? Oh, wait..

junkscience2017 9y ago

before you get too excited...this is the same country that mandates that some % of TV and radio content be "Canadian"

dingo_bat 9y ago
That's all ok you see. Forcing culture is fine if it's our culture. But if an American says he supports USA, you can damn well be sure he's a "fucking American imperialist pig".
- thg 9y ago
  I don't see other nations (trying to) force their culture, views and laws on everyone outside their nation.
  - adventured 9y ago
    > I don't see other nations (trying to) force their culture, views and laws on everyone outside their nation. British, Russian, German, Spanish, Japanese, Italian, Egyptian, Saudi, Chinese and French history would like a word with you. The only difference between nations that do and don't push such, is their ability to: those that have been able to, without exception, have done so throughout recorded history.
ekianjo 9y ago
they dont have content neutrality yet. France has the same issues with public media.
52-6F-62 9y ago
It has something to do with being flooded with American content and perspectives. You see, it's been understood here for some time what kind of effect media can have on a population. This seems to be something America is just coming to terms with, regarding organizations like Sinclair. It's been Canada's struggle for some time to maintain an identity in the face of some kind of ideological imperialism. Manifest Destiny is still fresh on Canadian minds, and non-points like this implying some kind of tyranny are grossly mal-informed. Our CRTC who made that ruling is the same CRTC who is ensuring net neutrality and mandating performant broadband internet as a basic telecom service. Things the FCC just thought not worth protecting for Americans. edit: To clarify myself a bit: This is an impassioned subject for me. I think the US is a great nation—but implying something nefarious about Canadians' attempt at self-preservation, while residing next to a federation like the US, is incomprehensible.

Jerry2 9y ago

Yet even with the NN, Canadians still pay the highest Internet and mobile charges in the world! [0] They are more taxed than anyone and they still have severe bandwidth caps. Given how their market is ruled by very few large companies, NN is a moot point for them since they pay through the nose anyway. They have no competition and that's a bigger issue. Their politicians always like to pat themselves on the back and are trying to present Canadian situation as better than the US all the time. But the reality is not so clear cut. [0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-canadas-internet-wireless-rates-compare-with-international-prices/article31379589/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-canad...

thomastjeffery 9y ago
Do you think that Net Neutrality is about cost? If so, you are misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is. Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readily available on the subject.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Its not about cost but if internet access is expensive or constrained in bandwidth it severly limits its utility.
  - tjoff 9y ago
    It doesn't. At all. If anything it makes it even worse, where prioritizing one type of data has an even bigger impact and can quickly cement the presence of companies such as facebook and obliterate any competitors.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > It doesn't. At all. Not At all? Are you sure? Ever tried to use video streaming services when your bandwidth is capped at 10 Gb per month?
      - 9y ago

smsm42 9y ago

What NN has to do with "freedom of speech, equality and diversity"? The whole article sounds like a bunch of duckspeak, repeating slogans without almost any actual informational content. Wait, no, I'm wrong, there's one: Canadian NAFTA negotiators have indicated that they support inclusion of a net neutrality provision within the agreement’s new digital trade chapter. What this means? That Canada would require US to create certain regulations as a condition for signing NAFTA? Wouldn't it be kinda presuming - telling US which laws they have? I mean, Canada can have any regulations they want, NN or not, that's their business, but what this has to do with US and NAFTA?

nekopa 9y ago
I think the US is probably the most likely to require negotiating parties to change laws to benefit them, and because the US negotiates from a position of strength most countries have to bow down to it.
Consultant32452 9y ago
The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights. So you may no longer be able to search for an abortion clinic, or newspapers that have negative articles about the government could be blocked, internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited, etc. While I think that's an unlikely outcome, it would be devastating to free speech, equality, and diversity.
- notdonspaulding 9y ago
  > The argument is that your carrier can now block you from getting information relevant to your rights That's not an argument. > So you may no longer be able to search for an abortion clinic, or newspapers that have negative articles about the government could be blocked, internet services in poor black neighborhoods may have their access to educational materials limited, etc. None of these hypotheticals are being seriously contemplated as potential outcomes of the FCC relinquishing its Title II authority over ISPs. Let's focus on the likely outcomes, not the unlikely ones.

wyck 9y ago

Is that why there is a virtual monopoly on internet connections and mobile options in Canada, and why Canadians pay some of the highest rates in the world for connectivity? Is this why Canadians only have one central news source, is the CRTC a bastion of freedom now all of a sudden? They do such a great job controling television and radio, let's trust them with the internet.

DKnoll 9y ago
There is more than one 'central news source' here. CP24 gets more play than CBC in my neck of the woods.
dglass 9y ago
This is exact what people don't realize would have happened in the US if net neutrality was kept in place. Classifying ISPs as title II would require them to apply for broadcasting licenses just like television and radio must do. What's the problem with that? Since they can't operate without a broadcasting license, the government can now threaten to revoke their license if they do not comply. The government would be able to strong arm these ISPs to remove anything they deemed as unfavorable content or propaganda (fake news?). Nationalizing the internet is not what we want here. The FCC's main responsibility is to regulate interstate communication. The FTC's responsibility is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of anticompetitive business practices, such as coercive monopoly. The FTC has much greater power to fight for consumer protections if the ISPs begin throttling, creating fast lanes, pricing tiers, etc. The US's media machine has also consolidated, along with ISPs becoming content producers themselves and bordering monopoly status. The FCC just a few days ago announced they will work with the FTC to "return jurisdiction to the FTC to police the conduct of ISPs, including with respect to their privacy practices." [0] Basically the FTC has more power to prevent and break up monopolies. By repealing net neutrality the FCC is saying they will hear consumers concerns and work with FTC to prevent ISPs from hurting consumers, because the FCC alone does not have the power to do that. It's also preventing the US government from forcing ISPs to comply by threatening to revoke their broadcasting license. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/ftc-fcc-outline-agreement-coordinate-online-consumer-protection https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/ftc-f...

miguelrochefort 9y ago

Canadians already pay the highest fees in the world for internet access. Regulation is only going to make it more difficult for competition to emerge. The solution to most of problems is competition, not regulation.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
Let's be direct about what this "regulation" is. Any action against net neutrality is action against customers. There is no value in removing net neutrality regulation, and it will have no effect on competition. Just because something can be described using the same noun does not give it the same meaning, value, or effect. One (not "the") solution to this problem is competition. Since that competition does not exist, we resort to another solution.
- miguelrochefort 9y ago
  > Any action against net neutrality is action against customers. How did you reach that conclusion? It's like saying "Any action against all-you-can-eat buffets is action against customers". Do you believe in pay neutrality, search results neutrality, store catalog neutrality, journal opinion neutrality, etc? How about Tesla making superchargers free to Tesla cars only? The world is not neutral, and that's completely fine. I don't see why it should be different for ISPs. If lack of options is the problem then all of our focus should be put toward making the field more competitive, not solidify and demotivate existing monopolies by dictating their business model. I'm sure Net Neutrality is motivated by good intentions, but I can't see any long-term benefits to it.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Net Neutrality itself is an ideal. It is distinct from any regulation enforcing it. Net Neutrality means the internet itself is a free market. > How did you reach that conclusion? I haven't heard a single point to the contrary, and yes, I have asked several times in several places for one. The only statements I have heard against net neutrality regulation are against its being regulation, and nothing else. The only parties with something to gain from a non-neutral internet are ISPs. That gain comes at the cost of abusing customers, to varying degrees. Your original comment was lamenting the current lack of competition between ISPs. Can I take that to mean you believe in free markets? Well, the internet itself is a market, and currently free (as in freedom) for the vast majority of its users. There are many obvious advantages to this. That freedom depends on users' ability to use it however they want to. Clearly any constraint on the use of the internet goes against that freedom. For ISPs who want to increase profits rather than improve infrastructure, a non-neutral internet is clearly a way to do that, allowing for new sources of revenue, and the right to blame customers who use more bandwidth for "using the internet wrong", rather than themselves for not having built the necessary infrastructure. Clearly, such actions are to the detriment of customers. That brings us to the regulation part of Net Neutrality regulation. Bad actors - in this case, ISPs who would rather abuse customers than help them - need a significant reason to do otherwise, usually financial. There are two clear reasons we can give them: 1. A free market. With competition, customers can choose the provider to support, giving ISPs a financial reason not to abuse customers. 2. Regulation. If it is illegal to abuse customers, and that law is enforced, ISPs have a fiscal reason not to abuse customers. Since we do not have a free market with competition between ISPs, the clear choice is regulation. If that point ever changes, I will be totally fine with removing the regulation, albeit my own (potentially unpopular) opinion. Like any other Libertarian, I am very skeptical of regulation. Before I accept the notion of something being regulated, I am concerned with why it is needed, what alternatives there are, and what detriment that regulation will have. So far, I have lined out why we need net neutrality regulation, what alternative there is, and why it is not currently viable, leaving me with what detriment the regulation itself will have. After careful consideration, I cannot find any detriment to net neutrality regulation. The idea that this specific regulation will hurt free market competition, which Ajit Pai claimed as his reason for removing the regulation, is not only nonsense: it is malicious.

H99189 9y ago

Let's please focus on breaking up ISP Monopolies, NN-like effects would be achieved, and much more, by doing so.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
Let's do both! It's clear that we need regulation until there is sufficient competition, so why get rid of regulation before competition exists?
- notdonspaulding 9y ago
  > "It's clear that we need regulation until there is sufficient competition..." I don't think it's as "clear" as you seem to think it is. What does seem to be a matter of historical fact is that the FCC has never been an organization which has had an interest in, or been able by fiat to, increase competition in the telecommunications industry. The US basically went for the entire 20th century with a heavily-regulated, government-enabled, monopolistic telecom network (AT&T, Verizon landline systems & DSL). The parts of the internet which have seen investment, growth, and improvement over the last 30 years? Yup, the unregulated, non-common-carrier networks (cable and fiber). > "why get rid of regulation before competition exists?" Because lowering barriers-of-entry into a market is exactly the best way to encourage competition in any industry. Before anyone starts an ISP (or any other business), they consider the costs of doing so vs. the expected payoff if they succeed. Regulatory compliance (especially FCC common-carrier compliance) is an added cost of doing business which absolutely could be enough to keep a business from starting up. You don't need NN to get telcos to behave. When did Comcast lower their prices and up their speeds? When Google Fiber came to town. When did Google Fiber come to town? When they got the municipality to remove as many barriers-to-entry as they could
  - convolvatron 9y ago
    what if its always more profitable to provide internet packages rather than equal access bits-are-bits service. even with several providers can you guarantee that at least one of them will charge flat rate or per bit rather than by content? the cost of regulatory compliance in this case isn't an additional fixed cost like .. properly disposing of waste products, but avoiding business models that constrain and restrict access. an internet where my usage - outside the question of compensating for last mile infrastructure and transit fees with a reasonable profit - is curated by some product management group solely interested in extracting the maximum profit from me and upstream services I might be using, isn't really an internet at all but cable television. and if we're just talking about cable television, I can probably learn to live without the wealth of internet entertainment options I have today..but if you hack off the long tail and undermine the general free exchange of information because it isn't sufficiently interesting from a business perspective to my regional provider, you've lost something quite substantial just so someone else can make a buck. maybe I'm in the minority, but as much as I enjoy having gigabit access, I would take an unrestricted 1Mb over a carefully controlled 1Gb in a heartbeat.

microcolonel 9y ago

I don't know what issue this could possibly address. Canada's problem is access and sometimes lack of available competition, not neutrality. I'm in a place where two of the major ISPs serve, and I have a gigabit downlink for not a huge amount of money, but just a few blocks away it's possible you only have one (DSL-only) provider who will barely sell you 20mb/s for the same. All of this is basically complete historical accident relating to deployment of cable TV.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
The US is very much the same, just more geographically diverse.
SuperPaintMan 9y ago
We have a tenth of the US population and are slightly larger in size. My province alone is twice the size of California with a population of one million people. Infrastructure is a gong show when it comes to profitability. In my province many areas are served by one provider, simply because it is not profitable to run infrastructure out to these areas. Near more populated areas there is more competition and major providers however. Hell, the only reason they have connections in the first place is because the provider was run and funded by the provincial government.

golemiprague 9y ago

That's why the tech industry thrived in the silicon valley and not in Canada. The lack of regulation made the internet what it is, if it was up to Canada we would still deliver bit and bites in punch cards delivered by union members with certificate to cary punch cards in a format approved by the government. I would leave net "neutrality" to the Canadians but would like to adopt their immigration policy if possible please.

brailsafe 9y ago

Our biggest advocacy group Open Media would say otherwise. Our regulations are constantly under threat by the big ~3 telecom companies. https://openmedia.org/en/ca https://openmedia.org/en/ca Edit: Maxime Bernier, in his tweet, creates a false dichotomy between government regulation and more competition. Yes we need more competition, but no we don't need less regulation unless that regulation is a major contributor to getting started. Now granted, I don't know a lot about getting started in telecom, but I suspect there isn't legislation in place that actively discourages new players.

acidtrucks 9y ago

Are Canadian vpn services subject to NN regulations?

codecamper 9y ago

Sorry.. why is net neutrality even an issue? The moment a big operator tries to increase fees for faster speeds, customers will move to an operator that does not do those things. New technology will provide higher speeds at lower cost. So why does it matter to have net neutrality laws? An problematic issue that tech might focus on would be to solve the problem of overconsumption of energy by cryptocurrencies.