Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada The Internet United States Your Rights Online

What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy 144

Posted by samzenpus from the great-white-north-policy dept.
blottsie writes As the U.S. continues to debate how best to establish net neutrality regulations over Internet service providers, author and journalist Peter Nowak explains how how Canada has already dealt with these issues, and what the U.S. can learn from its neighbor to the north."[Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper has made the connection between telecom policy and actual votes, and that has had enormous impact on public policy," says Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. "This is a ballot-box or pocket-book issue that hasn't really been seen yet in the United States."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy More

What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy

Comments Filter:

  • Was impressed until.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by waspleg ( 316038 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @03:35PM (#48404695) Journal

    "The rules prohibited ISPs from interfering with internet traffic, except as a last resort, and urged them to instead combat network congestion with âoeeconomic measuresâ such as new investment or usage limits.

    Those limits have resulted in relatively low monthly caps for Canadians, but the rules have kept neutrality violations to a minimum."

    If given the choice between investing in infrastructure and usage limits what do you think American ISPs would do?

    Also, all the speed in the world doesn't do much good with low caps.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      most of those usage caps aren't actively enforced with canadian ISPs i have both the major western providers and regularly use more than double my alotment the cable provider cares more and often requires me to threaten to cancel before they unthrottle me but they always do.

      • Well, in the US, rather than tons of red tape, bureaucracy, and regulations...how about simple rules one at a time as needed.

        1. You can't price based on traffic..all traffic is treated the same.

        Of course...you can flesh this out a bit, to allow for fixing traffic problems, etc...but keep it simple. Make it a law we can ALL read and tweak as needed with time.

        We don't need 2000 pages for this...

        • Re:Was impressed until.. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @04:43PM (#48405283)

          We don't need 2000 pages for this...

          Hmm, seems to be a reference to the ACA. Note that we didn't need 2000 pages for that, either.

          Start with "Age of eligibility for Medicare decreases by one year for every 90 days after the date this legislation becomes law".

          Then, "All individuals under the age of majority (currently 18 in the USA, last I looked) are eligible for Medicare as of the date this legislation becomes law".

          At that point, we're on a 12 year transition to Single-Payer, and everyone should be happy (except possibly the Insurance Companies that bought the ACA).

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

            At that point, we're on a 12 year transition to Single-Payer, and everyone should be happy (except possibly the Insurance Companies that bought the ACA).

            And those that don't want more if any govt intrusion and management of their health.

            :)

            I don't think the majority if Americans want Federal Govt. run healthcare. You still see that in the polls today.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              In Canada the Provinces run the healthcare with the Federal Govt setting the minimum baseline and transferring money between the rich and poor Provinces.
              Each province is similar but not exactly the same when it comes to health care which is why it's kind of funny when other countries talk about wait lists and such in Canada as it's a generalization.

            • Here's the difference between Canadian and US Health care (as a summary) before O-Care:

              US had a slightly higher top end standard (in places like the Mayo Clinic) and you could get better health care if you were covered by a great program from a good HMO (but it often cost). Canada had better overall coverage as we didn't have so many uncovered men, women and children. The problem in the US was that, if you got sick then had to change jobs, your new HMO likely would want to write up your health issue as pre-

              • The problem in the US was that, if you got sick then had to change jobs, your new HMO likely would want to write up your health issue as pre-existing and you wouldn't have coverage.

                This is a common misconception. The situation that you describe was illegal under HIPAA (pre-ObamaCare) due to the "P" in HIPAA.

                If you moved from one job to another and maintained continuous health insurance coverage (employers were required to offer this under COBRA), the new insurer could not exclude anything as a preexisting condition. If, however, you dropped health insurance coverage for too long, then the new insurer could exclude any preexisting condition for up to 12 months. After that, then they co

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by pnutjam ( 523990 )
                  Interestingly enough, and unknown to many people, some state and local government agencies were not bound by those rules. They still might not be. You could switch to a job at a state agency and get caught with the pre-existing condition clause.

          • The only rational reason that ACA exisists is to make Insurance-funded heathcare so bad that a socialized single payer system looks better in comparison. Under US law, Income taxes are specifically excluded from discharge via bankruptcy proceedings so we've gone from a system where people were forced into bankruptcy for medical expenses, to a system where even bankruptcy will not save you from your medical expenses and if for any reason the IRS finds that your subsidy was in error, they will not only requir

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by pnutjam ( 523990 )
              citation needed.

              Possibly the policy cost would not be dischargable, but I'm pretty sure they would just stop the policy.

        • Well, in the US, rather than tons of red tape, bureaucracy, and regulations...how about simple rules one at a time as needed.

          1. You can't price based on traffic..all traffic is treated the same.

          Oh, you mean Title II classification?

          • > > How about simple rules one at a time as needed.

            >Oh, you mean Title II classification?

            Title II is quite the opposite - over 100 pages of statute enabled by thousands of pages of regulations. You may have noticed Obama said he wanted to put them under Title II in regards to adding the USF tax to your bill and certain other parts, but not other parts of title II. The FCC commisioners had to point out that it doesn't work that way - the president doesn't get to write abnew law for some people b

            • > > How about simple rules one at a time as needed.

              >Oh, you mean Title II classification?

              Title II is quite the opposite - over 100 pages of statute enabled by thousands of pages of regulations. You may have noticed Obama said he wanted to put them under Title II in regards to adding the USF tax to your bill and certain other parts, but not other parts of title II. The FCC commisioners had to point out that it doesn't work that way - the president doesn't get to write abnew law for some people by picking and choosing a few parts of the law he likes while leaving out other parts. If we want a new law appropriate for ISPs, Congress would need to pass such a law.

              Actually, the FCC can do just that, according to the relevant law [fcc.gov] (cf. SEC. 203. [47 U.S.C. 203] SCHEDULES OF CHARGES):

              (2) The Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown,
              modify any requirement made by or under the authority of this section either in
              particular instances or by general order applicable to special circumstances or
              conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified
              in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.

              I'd also point out th

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Conservative government actually leaned on the CRTC (an FCC-esque government agency staffed by big-media cronies, which are incidentally in bed with the Liberals) to relax these rules and raise the limits. If it wasn't for the government acting (granted, after a grassroots outcry), independent ISPs would have been regulated to irrelevance by the CRTC.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by davecb ( 6526 )
        Odd, all three parties at various times said the CRTC was in bed with the big corporations. The current government genuinely hit them with a clue-stick, mind you!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hodet ( 620484 )

        With the conservatives sometimes you win some and sometimes you lose some. The minute it becomes politically advantageous to harm the internet in the country you can bet they would. This is not a government that is concerned with doing the right thing. They want to get re-elected first and foremost. This time it worked in our favour. The other two major political parties are no better. The article makes it sound like Canada has it all figured out. I was chuckling when I read it. I guess if your fram

    • Re:Was impressed until.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @04:13PM (#48405017) Homepage
      At least in Canada I know what I'm buying then. I get X GB per month, and there is (at least in my area) 3 different ISPs (1 cable, one DSL, and one independent) that I can go to. I go to the one that gives me more bandwidth, higher caps at a lower price (duh). It's $48/month for 300 GB, and there's an unlimited package for about $60, but we just don't seem to ever break that cap. (We came close once but reduced it by lowering the bandwidth settings on my wife's Netflix profile :)
      • Sounds like you are benefiting more from the competition than from the regulation.

        • Sounds like you are benefiting more from the competition than from the regulation.

          Given the natural monopoly condition that laying cables in the ground creates, regulation can force the competition into existence. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

        • Re:Was impressed until.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by JMJimmy ( 2036122 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @04:48PM (#48405327)

          Sounds like you are benefiting more from the competition than from the regulation.

          Competition introduced by regulation.

          • And what regulation, exactly, enabled that competition? Simply declaring ISPs as utilities will certainly not encourage that type of competition.

            • Re:Was impressed until.. (Score:4, Informative)

              by JMJimmy ( 2036122 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @07:36PM (#48406879)

              And what regulation, exactly, enabled that competition? Simply declaring ISPs as utilities will certainly not encourage that type of competition.

              Forcing the incumbents to, simply put, "wholesale" to IISPs. We went from a choice of 1 DSL provider and 1 cable provider per area to over 200 registered ISPs across the country. It's no where near as good as functional separation but it's better than the US system.

              • That approach makes more sense than some that think simply declaring US ISPs as utilities will be a step forward.

                • That approach makes more sense than some that think simply declaring US ISPs as utilities will be a step forward.

                  The title 2 change is simply a legally convenient way around waiting for congress to give them the authority they need to deal with the problems. Otherwise it'll be whack-a-mole situation that will cost millions in legal battles over language and authority of regulation.

      • At least in Canada I know what I'm buying then. I get X GB per month, and there is (at least in my area) 3 different ISPs (1 cable, one DSL, and one independent) that I can go to. I go to the one that gives me more bandwidth, higher caps at a lower price (duh). It's $48/month for 300 GB, and there's an unlimited package for about $60, but we just don't seem to ever break that cap. (We came close once but reduced it by lowering the bandwidth settings on my wife's Netflix profile :)

        It sounds like you are onl

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • My service is $42 a month Cdn for 25 Mbps down and 2 or 3 Mbps up (enough to serve skype conferences) with a 300 Gb cap but it also doesn't count 'wee hours' usage (12 - 6 am?) and I've only once come close to the cap and that was a mix of massive software installs and updates combined with heavy netflix high-res usage that month.

            And its with Teksavvy. I was soooo glad to say goodbye to Rogers and previously Primus and Bell at different times.

            Teksavvy may use Rogers' cable (or as I think of it, taxpayer-fun

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )

          I have several computers on here at home 24/7/365...I'm constantly streaming stuff...etc. I have no idea how much data I use, but I have guess it is FAR north of 300GB/mo.

          So I'm looking at my internet usage here for the last 6 months. I've got 4-5PCs on 24x7 including a personal server. I work from a home office usually. I've got 100Mb/5Mb connection I don't have cable tv, and the family streams 100s hours of netflix youtube daily. My plans limit is 500GB. My average download is 250GB. With anothoher 10 to

          • I did mention I have a business connection coming to my home, unlimited, low level SLA even.

            I pay $70/mo.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by vux984 ( 928602 )

              You wrote "business", just so, in quotes - so I presumed it was little more than a bump up in price, maybe static ip (still served to your router via DHCP), and a commitment to prioritize your outages, and fewer limits on outbound mail etc.

              In my case I'm on consumer. The "business" version for $20 more gets me static ip... but with my ISPs infrastructure that's really that's just little more than a commitment to notify me in advance of an ip address change. In practice my ip changes so rarely (only 1 once i

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              $70 would equal $100+ in Canada. We're a large sparsely populated country and most everything costs about a 1/3rd more then the States (even more compared to the Southern States)

          • a) you're not even close to the 99th percentile. There are users of Teksavvy's 300gb/m services that manage over 1.5TB of data in a month without overages (they give free upload, free download from 2am to 8am)

            b) You are in Canada.

            c) or just get the unlimited package or "Zap the Cap" (trade prime time speed for unlimited data transfer)and do as many terabytes as your speed will allow.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by vux984 ( 928602 )

              a) you're not even close to the 99th percentile.

              Oh, I assure you I am. 99th percentile, of course, means 99% of users use less. And they do. I've got plenty of sources that back that up. I don't question that there are users using more, even lots more.... but

              a) 99% of users still use less
              b) given how much I do use, I really do find it genuinely difficult to imagine many home users actually needing much more unless they are torrenting a TON... and my argument there was that "being able to torrent a ton" does

              • a) If you're with Teksavvy you're not in their 99th percentile at 400GB/month. I'm with TSI as well and their 99th percentile is 1TB+. You're above average but not anywhere near their top end

                b)

                You aren't entitlted to stream uncompressed bluray rips 24 hours a day while performing daily encrypted non-differential backups to a cloud provider for $60 month.

                You are entitled to do so in Canada (assuming they are legal rips) on a $60 plan - heck you're entitled to do so on a $20 plan. Uploads are free with TSI with zero restrictions.

                c) My point was that you don't need bonding or business to do terabytes per month - people do it on a regular basis with 25/10 plans.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by vux984 ( 928602 )

                  If you're with Teksavvy you're not in their 99th percentile at 400GB/month. I'm with TSI as well and their 99th percentile is 1TB+. You're above average but not anywhere near their top end

                  99th percentile of internet users. Not 99th percentile of Teksavvy customers. Given Teksavvy is only a small fraction of the market (and its largely a niche market that is attracted to teksavvy precisely because of its upload etc policies, etc.)

                  You are entitled to do so in Canada (assuming they are legal rips) on a $60 pla

                  • Part of it is that the incumbents count upload and download equally so when you compare a 500GB upload/download plan to a 300GB download only plan they don't compare. Take my usage last month: 185.32GB down on a 300GB/m plan. Barely meet the average for TSI. Except that that identical usage with the likes of Bhell, Robbers, Cogeblow, or any of the other incumbents I would have been at 957.35GB of 500GB/m. I don't do anything special and easily come close to/hit 1TB.

                    The theoretical maximum data transfer

        • Hughesnet Gen4, 10 Gb anytime, 10Gb from 02:00-08:00, it's pretty hard to not hit the cap for me. No DSL possible, they'd have to replace the telephone line from the DSLAM to the house, comcast just laughes. Our electricity comes in single phase, we don't even have cross beams on the power poles, just hot and neutral one above the other. OBTW I am in the US, not Afganistan or Hati.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kbahey ( 102895 )

        In my area, there is $50 a month for 30Mbps download, 5Mbps upload, unlimited cap.

        See this plan [vmedia.ca]

    • Re:Was impressed until.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @04:16PM (#48405041)

      I live in Ontario. I have the choice of about 25 ISPs, multiple DSL, multiple Cable, a few wireless, some satellite...

      The problem with DSL is the last mile belongs to Bell, the others just rent the lines at wholesale prices. Same with Cable, it's either Rogers or Cogeco, depending on location, for the last mile.

      However, unlike Cogeco, I get to pay an "indie" ISP $50/mo for a 20mbps/10mbps uncapped package, where Cogeco wants to charge $100 for the same thing.

      • It is a bit unfair the upstarts get away with leasing rather than their own build out, but since the Big 3 got their build-outs on the back of the Canadian Taxpayer, I don't really feel so bad.

        If we decoupled content provision from bit pipe/access provision, we'd be in better shape. Access provision would be a lower margin thing, but cities and even non-profits could invest (thinking of folks like Ottawa FreeNet) if the government would back them up. Rogers, Bell and Telus could stick to content provision (

    • usage caps are a big step up, because at least they are honest, and of course predictable. without net neutrality, you have hidden bandwith caps that happen anytime the ISP wants to shake down a site for more money. The ISPs have to give you all the internet you pay for. Its they can't just promise 100 mb/s sooper unlimited to the moon, and simply not deliever that promise. I am all for THAT type of regulation which makes the internet companies give you what was advertised. If you sign a contract for 10

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Also, all the speed in the world doesn't do much good with low caps.

      All the speed in the world doesn't do much good if you can't stream Netflix in HD. Or your webpages take forever to load because the website didn't pay your ISP. Or your VoIP calls are shitty because the links are so overloaded latency spikes.

    • Bell Canada actively spies on what their users do on all their connections, internet and phone. They track you. They openly stated it a few years ago, 'for advertising purposes.' The major players have regional monopolies but have been transitioning to an oligarchy, with bit players allowed to piggyback if they behave. There is only one small very local company that has its own fibre backbone that is any good, and that is Novus in Vancouver. And they are only in high rise condos, which is too bad. Ten years

  • You mean keep talking but don't make changes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by what2123 ( 1116571 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @03:38PM (#48404713)
    While the US public internet is a sham it's no where as bad as the one the Canadians get to deal with. I'd say from what I've learned about Shaw, Rogers, and Bell Aliant it seems to be that Comcast and TWC still look slightly less evil. At our ISP are trying to play the cards (for now) while the big 3 in Canada know they are permanently allowed to screw their customers. The CRTC is a joke and should be re-established.

    • Re:You mean keep talking but don't make changes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rob MacDonald ( 3394145 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @03:59PM (#48404903)
      Ahh, good ole Slashdot, were people with absolutely no knowledge or understanding feel the need to post comments...... I'll give you this much, Rogers is the Canadian version of Comcast, that's a fact right down to the traffic shaping (and denials). I also agree the CRTC is a joke. But I'll take my "crappy" Bell Aliant connection that is unthrottled and unrestricted compared to ANY major US ISP. Our handful of crooked corporations did the same BS the US carriers did, convinced the tax payers to subsidize their infrastructure upgrades (which never happened) and now they are scrambling. Bell has been on a major roll out finalizing their fiber network in my province, and offering pretty epic deals compared to any other competitors, including US ISPs. I have no monthly CAP, I don't know anyone who does. I torrent, I pirate, I stream, I take absolutely no measures to protect myself in that regard and have no complaints since, seriously, 2001.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by davecb ( 6526 )
        He's probably on Rogers, where all of the above is trivially true.
      • I am familiar with Bell Aliant through business connections but I think I have them and Bell Canada confused. However, Bell Canada did just acquire them, did they not? Do you see any negative impacts from this or will all remain as comfortable as you see it now?

    • I've said this before and I'll say it again. Look at what you are getting and how much you pay for it before calling it a sham. In 1990 you wouldn't have dreamed to have what you have now and this for a misally $30 / month. Caps are a non issue since most providers offer upgrades to increase the cap at a very reasonable rate (call them and you'll find out). If you don't think your current cost for information is reasonable then try to live without it.

      Nobody is obligated to offer low cost entertainment. It's

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by afidel ( 530433 )

        my internet bill has not increased since 1999 and my service is 7 times faster than it was in 1999

        So? As you can see from graph 4 on this [stanford.edu] page wholesale bandwidth prices fell 700% in 5 years, you're 3 fold below that drop in price which is only possible because the last mile is a minimally competitive market (oligopoly).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        You're lucky, my price has more then doubled and my connection speed is still 12MBs per hour. I'm about 45 miles from downtown Vancouver.

  • And it won't be (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @03:43PM (#48404751)

    "This is a ballot-box or pocket-book issue that hasn't really been seen yet in the United States."

    Not while the mega-conglomerates control the news AND the cables it runs on. And, of course, the Senators who would vote on it.

    • Right now, the government needs votes, and telecom behaviour has annoyed a large enough minority that they're worth campaigning to. Pitching to minorities has been a priority for the government since they got in, as they previously had been criticised as being composed entirely of white western farmers and oilmen.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by davecb ( 6526 )
        More correctly, they want to control the news. One man controlled roughly 1/3 of the news at one point, and pushed for his preferred party and leader. The leader face-planted on a seadoo and the party had to do an unfriendly takeover of another party (mine!) to get into power. The newspaper chain in question is barely alive any more.

  • Apparently they can learn that it's yet another way to buy votes.

    God help us all.

  • Really? (Score:1)

    by koan ( 80826 )

    Obama calls for NN at a time when he has nothing to lose, a republican controlled congress that hates him, and he previously appointed a lobbyist for the industry to the head of the FCC.

    For 6 years Canada has had their policy in place, in those same 6 years the Internet issues have grown worse here in the US.

    Now put those 2 statements together and what do you think will happen here. -- notice no question mark.

  • Change Last Mile (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Monday November 17, 2014 @03:47PM (#48404799) Journal

    IF you really want to fix the Internet, and fix Net Neutrality, fix the last mile issue.

    Right now I have a choice of the following Comcast Cable, AT&T DSL, or Wireless Internet. Comcast has the higher speeds, DSL is unusable where I am located, and wireless is too flaky. Comcast has no real competition on delivery.

    My Solution: Upgrade the Municipality to FIOS service to a COLO facility. Bring Fiber to each home (one time bond build out) and have several providers offer service out of the COLO. Net Neutrality issues go away, you can pay for exactly what you want/need. Bandwidth issues become points for competition, "We've Peered with Netflix so SUPERHD videos now available!"

    We do not need new laws to fix this, we need better understanding of how to build competition into the marketplace, rather than build in regulations that only serve the vested interests who can afford politicians.

    • But that makes sense. It'll never happen unless it can be monetized into campaign contributions.

    • Is there anything stopping people from putting on the ballot and voting for a tax increase to lay down fiber paid and owned for by them, in order to create more competition?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by davecb ( 6526 )
        That used to be how we built hospitals and paid for road improvements: they're called things like "local business improvement areas".

    • Upgrade the Municipality to FIOS service to a COLO facility.

      I believe that states have started passing laws against municipalities laying their own fiber because the states are tired of bailing out bankrupt municipalities who have done so.

      • Upgrade the Municipality to FIOS service to a COLO facility.

        I believe that states have started passing laws against municipalities laying their own fiber because the states are tired of bailing out bankrupt municipalities who have done so.

        Citations please. How many municipalities have created their own local last-mile implementations? How many have gone bankrupt? You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.

        • Citations please. How many municipalities have created their own local last-mile implementations? How many have gone bankrupt? You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.

          A quick search found Municipal broadband expansion blocked in many states [timesfreepress.com]. I'm not claiming that the municipalities are going bankrupt (like what happened with Provo, UT and why Google was able to buy their fiber for $1), but I know that's the reasoning being presented to the state legislatures. I wouldn't be surprised if a lobbyist could go before your average state representative and say "Municipalities are doing X, and going bankrupt over it. You'd better stop X in your state so you won't have to bail ou

          • Citations please. How many municipalities have created their own local last-mile implementations? How many have gone bankrupt? You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.

            A quick search found Municipal broadband expansion blocked in many states [timesfreepress.com]. I'm not claiming that the municipalities are going bankrupt (like what happened with Provo, UT and why Google was able to buy their fiber for $1), but I know that's the reasoning being presented to the state legislatures. I wouldn't be surprised if a lobbyist could go before your average state representative and say "Municipalities are doing X, and going bankrupt over it. You'd better stop X in your state so you won't have to bail out your Municipalities", and the representative wouldn't spend time double checking the reality of the situation. They just know that they wouldn't want to deal with a budget crises where all of their municipalities are going bankrupt.

            That such arguments are being made may very well be the case. It's certainly plausible that those with vested interests would make such an argument. I'm not going to waste my time reviewing transcripts of debates in 20+ statehouses to determine if it is, in fact, the case.

            That said, just because such an argument may be made, doesn't mean it's true.

            You contradict yourself by first saying:

            I believe that states have started passing laws against municipalities laying their own fiber because the states are tir

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That is the argument used by the incumbents, which has mostly been debunked. The small number of muni networks that have failed have been shown to be the result of mismanagement, malfeasance, or both. Municipalities that do proper due diligence and actually operate for the good of the people they serve have had a stellar success rate with mostly satisfied customers.

    • My Solution: Upgrade the Municipality to FIOS service to a COLO facility. Bring Fiber to each home (one time bond build out) and have several providers offer service out of the COLO. Net Neutrality issues go away, you can pay for exactly what you want/need. Bandwidth issues become points for competition

      Certainly a much better scenario than regulating as a utility and potentially hurting the chances of competition arising.

    • How do you imagine you build competition into the marketplace? It sounds a lot like new regulations to me.

      The problem is there is no interest from the big incumbents to do anything other than attempt whatever stranglehold they can and they have piles of people figuring out how to do just that in one form or another.

      Without regulation, you'll never get out of this mess. That requires law and lawyers and enforcement.

      Frankly, if internet service were mandated as a common utility, that might be a useful change.

  • Basically, if the ISP's are managing service based on content, they are no longer a neutral service provider ("common carrier" like the post office).
    Therefore they can be held responsible for the content they're providing. (Hey, they're TAKING the responsibility, we're not dumping it on them)
    Therefore the ISP should be charged with trafficking in child pornography the next time one of their users is charged.

    I have no doubt that the lawyers will find a way to get the charges dropped, but it should make for s

  • What can the US learn? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Let's see:

    - Implement a CRTC and ensure it is run by the major telcos. This way the CRTC can crush local competition while pretending to permit access to the major telcos lines.
    - Said CRTC will always approve the most ridiculous limits the major telcos ask for, and will generally ignore complaints that the major telcos only have to bill themselves for overages on those limits. For example: 60 GB data transfer limits, then 300 GB data transfer limits, with exorbitant per GB transfer prices

  • "What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy"

    How to make millions of dollars in profit by over-charging and under-delivering on products and services.
  • > "What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy"

    The advantages of moving to Germany.
  • We pay the price for the bit of regulatory advantage we have. I see US commercials for home internet and mobile data and am blown away. Data rates are so expensive up here in Canada compared to what is advertised in th US. My cell bill is 80 bucks a month, and I get a measly 1 gig a month shared with my wife's phone - she still has to pay 65 bucks for her phone service itself even though she shares my data (granted we get unlimited nationwide calling and texting, but this seems to be the norm for most pl

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Maow ( 620678 )

      We pay the price for the bit of regulatory advantage we have.

      Not in my experience.

      I see US commercials for home internet and mobile data and am blown away.

      Canadians get offered advertised rates that are enough to "blow one away". In the small print, it's always "for the first 6 months, then it doubles". See Telus and Shaw for examples.

      Data rates are so expensive up here in Canada compared to what is advertised in th US. My cell bill is 80 bucks a month, and I get a measly 1 gig a month shared with my wife's phone - she still has to pay 65 bucks for her phone service itself even though she shares my data (granted we get unlimited nationwide calling and texting, but this seems to be the norm for most plans).

      Then shop around. I pay $40 / month and get 5 GB / month on mobile before throttling, unlimited global SMS, unlimited North America-wide voice calling, free MMS, voice mail, call conferencing, call display,... Wind Mobile. Oh, and the wife gets unlimited nation-wide calling for $25 too. Our accounts are

Slashdot Top Deals

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Close