OT: Net Neutrality maybe in Jeopardy

[Fairview4Life]

Yeah guys, it wasn't necessary to codify the rules in 2010, so clearly it won't ever be necessary. It's not like the rules were put in place for a reason. It was just the standard liberal government overreach. Ol evil Obama stretching out those insidious government tentacles.

[AkelaLoneWolf]

And again... for like the 3rd time now... I'm in support of net neutrality!

Nobody needs to convince me of its merits. I'm aware of them. I was simply pointing out the money and influence of the so called grass roots movement and the situation in Canada where a telecom tried to supply superior service to consumers by offering free data on video products they had investments in which was shot down because of net neutrality. That's not a made up story. That happened in the country we live in.

I've already shared why I went off course and moved the conversation more into other areas of discussion. It's because others are doing the same thing with regard to Net Neutrality. The larger conversation is moving beyond it as a concept and into other issues. I've had these discussions in other places both offline and online so I naturally expected the conversation to move there and pre-preemptively shared my take on privacy versus surveillance because I know it's not super common among young liberal people and because I think it's a consideration other young liberal people should at least give some thought to. I shared my opinions on those things. I shared that I expected I'd be outnumbered for these beliefs on a basketball message board that skews young and repeated several times now that I'm basically done with the conversation because I'm not sure what else I can really say that I haven't already. I support net neutrality. I'm probably more concerned with violent crime than many people are. I'd be okay with more surveillance if a sufficient balance could be found, including more high quality cameras up on street lights in Toronto. Despite these feelings I support a socially progressive agenda elsewhere and feel like privacy fanatics truly do remind me of gun rights fanatics at times.

You understand that's a good thing right? If the product is superior as you say then on an equal footing, consumers will buy it and support it. What I don't want is for a telecom service to say that its product is superior and then offer easier access to it while throttling the competition.

As far the rest of your post regarding privacy and surveillance, its a bit of a high wire act. I've come to accept that Big Brother is an inevitability. If these tools are available to the government they will use it. We just have to make sure rules are in place to minimize abuse. Street cameras to protect the vulnerable can easily be used to target women who wear hijabs, who don't have white skin etc... History has shown use that tools/power unchecked can and will lead to abuse. I wouldn't be surprised to read in a few years that CSIS has been abusing the powers its been given just as the NSA was doing.

[Patman]

If this comes to pass it'll be interesting to see how the market adapts. I don't think it'll be how the big guys think it will.

This. Are we the only two not worried by this? The conglomerates like Bell and Robbers will probably charge for popular content, but there's nothing stopping smaller ISP's from not charging anything extra for content. I'm with Bell, but if they start charging a per diem for Netflix and such, I'll simply switch to a competitor.

There is very little broadband competition in Canada, relatively speaking.

Is Tek Savvy still around? If not, then this sounds like a market opportunity for new businesses.

[Raps in 4]

You have to wonder how a body of government can keep pushing for this when the public have made it clear where they stand on the matter. At what point do you wonder why they are pushing for something the people do not want?

Very few people know what net neutrality is. Trump also told them that net neutrality is bad because it's a product of government regulation, and government regulation is bad because it's "socialist".

[whoknows]

Yeah guys, it wasn't necessary to codify the rules in 2010, so clearly it won't ever be necessary. It's not like the rules were put in place for a reason. It was just the standard liberal government overreach. Ol evil Obama stretching out those insidious government tentacles.

I know you're sarcastic but in reality, government control is worst thing for our privacy and cost since there is nobody to compete against. Look at Obama's IRS finally admitting they did target opposition and on and on it goes.
When all it centralized and controlled by government, history teaches us it always ends up in corruption and abuse.

Reminds me of the kid who when asked what he wants to do when growing up he responds:
"I want to be part of organized mafia since they seem to get all they want".
To this his father responds:
"Sounds good son, do you want to work in private or public sector?"

[Raps in 4]

This. Are we the only two not worried by this? The conglomerates like Bell and Robbers will probably charge for popular content, but there's nothing stopping smaller ISP's from not charging anything extra for content. I'm with Bell, but if they start charging a per diem for Netflix and such, I'll simply switch to a competitor.

There is very little broadband competition in Canada, relatively speaking.

Is Tek Savvy still around? If not, then this sounds like a market opportunity for new businesses.

Tekksavvy is a reseller. All the third party ISPs are resellers.

There are only 2-3 competitors per province. In Ontario, we have Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco (in rural areas). The CRTC doesn't allow new entrants into the space. Competitors have to lease their lines from Rogers/Bell.

[OakleyDokely]

You have to wonder how a body of government can keep pushing for this when the public have made it clear where they stand on the matter. At what point do you wonder why they are pushing for something the people do not want?

Very few people know what net neutrality is. Trump also told them that net neutrality is bad because it's a product of government regulation, and government regulation is bad because it's "socialist".

Funny thing is, without socialism, a lot of those red states would be bankrupt. NY, CAL, ILL are bankrolling states like Alabama so they can vote in Pedo's.

[OakleyDokely]

There is very little broadband competition in Canada, relatively speaking.

Is Tek Savvy still around? If not, then this sounds like a market opportunity for new businesses.

Tekksavvy is a reseller. All the third party ISPs are resellers.

There are only 2-3 competitors per province. In Ontario, we have Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco (in rural areas). The CRTC doesn't allow new entrants into the space. Competitors have to lease their lines from Rogers/Bell.

What do you think about Freedom mobile? They seem to be expanding into the wireless space.

[Raps in 4]

Is Tek Savvy still around? If not, then this sounds like a market opportunity for new businesses.

Tekksavvy is a reseller. All the third party ISPs are resellers.

There are only 2-3 competitors per province. In Ontario, we have Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco (in rural areas). The CRTC doesn't allow new entrants into the space. Competitors have to lease their lines from Rogers/Bell.

What do you think about Freedom mobile? They seem to be expanding into the wireless space.

Wireless is different since you don't need to dig up the city to build infrastructure. Having said that, Freedom has already been bought by Shaw, the Rogers equivalent in the west coast (although their plans have remained reasonable, and I got free LTE on my grandfathered $32 Wind plan ). The CRTC didn't allow a non-Canadian investor to buy them.

[lobosloboslobos]

I'd support more Dundas Square-style eye in the sky cameras in Toronto at more major landmarks, public spaces, and heavily congested intersections to better protect children and women by dissuading would be predators and to give the police more ability to track license plates in hit and runs or in violent robberies. This type of surveillance terrifies some but with sufficient oversight and trust in the rest of our democratic process I'm not opposed to it at all.

More disingenuous and dangerous logic. (I'll stop calling you on it when you stop pushing it.)

Your subtle yet obvious equating of 'putting more CCTV cameras at major landmarks to protect the women and children" and the complete and final subversion of the internet to corporate and statist interests is preposterous.

The main concern with net neutrality, which you are utterly unwilling to acknowledge (from what motive I cannot tell) is:

it will give the ISPs more or less unlimited power to determine disproportionate costs for different users of online services. If you pay more you go to the front of the line, but if you provide a social service like wikipedia or any non-profit, or if you are a small business or startup or a niche online community or small political party, or you just have some artwork or personal projects, or your own social media chanels with a couple thousands subscribers, or gee, maybe you run RealGM, then people trying to access your services will get throttled so that your content loads super slow or not at all at busy times, unless you pony up extra cash. DO YOU WANT THAT FOREVER or do you want to be on an equal footing with everyone else, from the biggest to the smallest, so that the internet can maintain some of its democratic and entrepreneurial potential and capacity?

and the concern with additional security that you are so underplaying by comparing it to a few additional CCTV cameras is the ability of the surveillance state to access and listen to any phone call you've ever made, to read any email or text, to basically monitor you and anyone else at all times legally, and you call this an unrealistic sci-fi future even though it is on the brink of happening and is technically very easy for the spies already. Even though the phone you carry around is far more powerful than anything imagined in the Star Trek of my childhood. Even though most people have already accepted that such surveillance is inevitable. And yet you think anyone who is an activist against this situation and clings to the notion that we should all be free to carry out our business without state surveillance until such time as we actually commit a crime is a 'privacy fanatic'. Well, I suppose if you get your way you and all your security-conscious buds will be able to watch all us privacy fanatics 24/7 to make sure we don't step out of line. I'll be sure to make it entertaining...

[Wo1verine]

If this comes to pass it'll be interesting to see how the market adapts. I don't think it'll be how the big guys think it will.

This. Are we the only two not worried by this? The conglomerates like Bell and Robbers will probably charge for popular content, but there's nothing stopping smaller ISP's from not charging anything extra for content. I'm with Bell, but if they start charging a per diem for Netflix and such, I'll simply switch to a competitor.

Switch to who exactly? Not many providers at least in Ontario that i know of that aren't owned by either Bell, Rogers or Cogeco *

[simmons21]

Is Tek Savvy still around? If not, then this sounds like a market opportunity for new businesses.

Tekksavvy is a reseller. All the third party ISPs are resellers.

There are only 2-3 competitors per province. In Ontario, we have Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco (in rural areas). The CRTC doesn't allow new entrants into the space. Competitors have to lease their lines from Rogers/Bell.

What do you think about Freedom mobile? They seem to be expanding into the wireless space.

I know this wans't addressed to me but I thought I'd interject here just a little. It's not that the CTRC doesn't allow new competitors (maybe true in the past), they actually actively encourage them. But for broadband/cable internet the infrastructure that was mostly created by the government has been claimed and then further groomed by they couple of major players. Laying new wire is extremely costly, so small third party companies have no choice but to piggyback off the bigger ones to create a small amount of competition in urban areas.

So even if you want to switch to someone like techsavvy or Start, fido etc. the same content and platforms will be controlled by the parent telecom. The lack of competition in North America makes net neutrality extra dangerous. No new venture capital backed company has anywhere near enough money to disrupt the "grandfathered" telecoms because their infrastructure is now as ubiquitous as oxygen.

Freedom Mobile uses their own towers yes, but their service is still struggling to keep up and the towers they own personally are only relegated to urban areas. So a vast majority of their network still needs to be covered by the big threes towers. They, public mobile (bought by Telus) mobilicity (bought by Rogers then shut down), tried to disrupt the market but all went bankrupt and they could only survive after being bought out by a big telecom in the end. Shaw now owns Freedom btw.

[lobosloboslobos]

OK look, DH, I don't want to get any more worked up about this topic, which I obviously care about, than I am. I'm going to assume that your heightened concern with law and order stems from either a tragic experience with the need for law enforcement or a personal anxiety. If it's the former, I sympathize, and I know it can colour your views on these issues permanently. If it's the latter, well, happily you will find if you consult the stats that crime rates including violent ones have been falling for years, so things are looking up. Either way, locking down the internet commercially and destroying what little privacy rights remain online are not the way to reduce criminal activity. There are much better and much less destructive strategies available that I'd encourage you to focus on.

[Patman]

Tekksavvy is a reseller. All the third party ISPs are resellers.

There are only 2-3 competitors per province. In Ontario, we have Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco (in rural areas). The CRTC doesn't allow new entrants into the space. Competitors have to lease their lines from Rogers/Bell.

What do you think about Freedom mobile? They seem to be expanding into the wireless space.

I know this wans't addressed to me but I thought I'd interject here just a little. It's not that the CTRC doesn't allow new competitors (maybe true in the past), they actually actively encourage them. But for broadband/cable internet the infrastructure that was mostly created by the government has been claimed and then further groomed by they couple of major players. Laying new wire is extremely costly, so small third party companies have no choice but to piggyback off the bigger ones to create a small amount of competition in urban areas.

So even if you want to switch to someone like techsavvy or Start, fido etc. the same content and platforms will be controlled by the parent telecom. The lack of competition in North America makes net neutrality extra dangerous. No new venture capital backed company has anywhere near enough money to disrupt the "grandfathered" telecoms because their infrastructure is now as ubiquitous as oxygen.

Freedom Mobile uses their own towers yes, but their service is still struggling to keep up and the towers they own personally are only relegated to urban areas. So a vast majority of their network still needs to be covered by the big threes towers. They, public mobile (bought by Telus) mobilicity (bought by Rogers then shut down), tried to disrupt the market but all went bankrupt and they could only survive after being bought out by a big telecom in the end. Shaw now owns Freedom btw.

Sooo... panac?

[David-Kornel]

I should have anticipated that transitioning from net neutrality to privacy issues would confuse some but my point was just that I’m concerned that politicians and the regulatory bodies are going to earmark in a ton of privacy-related loopholes on the backs of this because privacy fanatics are pushing them to do so while addressing this and that they’ll overreach into privacy regulation so far the other way that criminals will be able to exploit and fall back on new rules created on the backs of the worthwhile pursuit of net neutrality.

Sorry DH but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. "Privacy fanatics"? What the hell are those? Are you out of your mind? Do you realize that the internet has enabled the almost total destruction of the very concept of privacy as it has been known for hundreds of years? Did you not notice Edward Snowden sharing DOZENS of illegal surveillance programs run by governments that involve domestic and external spying, the collection of YOUR metatata through backdoors built into the most widely used platforms in the world??? Do you believe that people who are calling the for the retention of even the smallest slice of privacy rights - like the kind that would prevent the police from unilaterally searching and reading and viewing every email or voice call or text you have ever made without notifying you (something being advocated for in the USA now and quite possibly going to be made into law because of nutbars like you) are "privacy fanatics"????? What sort of alt-right loony bin are you spending time in? Well, hello Agent Smith!

Do you think that privacy rights protect pedophiles and online criminals working the dark web? What? Are you kidding? Do you think they care in the slightest about those supposed protections or feel in any way bound or affected by them? What are you saying?

You want to fight online predators and pedophiles? Fine, every single person here is with you. But your invention of 'privacy fanatics' and insistence that they are a threat that we must respond to by locking up every freedom is exactly the same BS that is used to demonize the handful of antifa protesters or Black Lives Matter and justify even more state suppression and intimidation. Your arguments are either intentionally misleading and shameful or merely ignorant and seriously in need of some research from elsewhere than the Breitbart echo chamber.

If you didn't come on so strong I wouldn't respond so strongly, but man, whether you know it or not you're spouting some genuinely dangerous ideas in these volatile times.

He's an FCC shill.

I am absolutely blown away that after all this time people on this board still haven't realized that DH is an MLSE employee paid by Rogers/Bell. Seriously smh.

[VanWest82]

Maybe vs. may be. I was initially irritated by this title, but even though OP should have gone with "may be", this would appear to be one of those cases where the adverb and verb phrase are both correct as the rules governing titles clearly are more lax than with regular sentences (i.e. "Net Neutrality perhaps in Jeopardy" is terrible as a sentence but fine as a title even though grammatically it's a little rough).

There is no good counter argument against net neutrality however. It may be the single most obvious answer to the question of how internet content should be delivered/accessed.

[Fairview4Life]

This. Are we the only two not worried by this? The conglomerates like Bell and Robbers will probably charge for popular content, but there's nothing stopping smaller ISP's from not charging anything extra for content. I'm with Bell, but if they start charging a per diem for Netflix and such, I'll simply switch to a competitor.

There is very little broadband competition in Canada, relatively speaking.

Is Tek Savvy still around? If not, then this sounds like a market opportunity for new businesses.

Starting a new broadband provider is not that easy! That's the whole issue, really.

[OakleyDokely]

Interesting...

To get around the latency issue, several ventures are getting set to put hundreds, and eventually thousands, of networked satellites in low Earth orbit, or LEO. So many more satellites will be required because they’re constantly on the move with relation to Earth’s surface. But because LEO satellites are hundreds of miles above Earth, rather than thousands, the network lag time would amount to 30 to 50 milliseconds. That’s competitive with terrestrial networks.

It so happens that some of the folks connected to these satellite projects have quite a bit of experience shaking up established markets.

For example, British billionaire Richard Branson’s Virgin Group is one of the backers of OneWeb, an international consortium that aims to begin offering global broadband service as early as 2019. Branson’s Virgin Orbit and Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture are due to launch some of OneWeb’s hundreds of satellites.

Meanwhile, SpaceX and its billionaire founder, Elon Musk, are making plans for a 4,425-satellite broadband-beaming constellation in low Earth orbit. The company’s satellite operation in Redmond, Wash., is taking the lead development role. The first prototype satellite is due to be launched sometime in the next few months, with commercial service gathering steam in the 2019-2024 time frame.

The pricing for such services hasn’t yet been announced — but Patricia Cooper, SpaceX’s vice president for satellite government affairs, promised in May that the constellation would bring “high-speed, reliable and affordable broadband service to consumers in the U.S. and around the world.”

OneWeb has a similar aim: “We set pretty high goals, but we are getting to a billion subscribers by 2025,” the company’s executive chairman, Greg Wyler, said last month. “These are big numbers, but we are going to make it really easy to install and really affordable.”

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/net-neutralitys-peril-boost-prospects-global-satellite-broadband/

[lobosloboslobos]

Sorry DH but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. "Privacy fanatics"? What the hell are those? Are you out of your mind? Do you realize that the internet has enabled the almost total destruction of the very concept of privacy as it has been known for hundreds of years? Did you not notice Edward Snowden sharing DOZENS of illegal surveillance programs run by governments that involve domestic and external spying, the collection of YOUR metatata through backdoors built into the most widely used platforms in the world??? Do you believe that people who are calling the for the retention of even the smallest slice of privacy rights - like the kind that would prevent the police from unilaterally searching and reading and viewing every email or voice call or text you have ever made without notifying you (something being advocated for in the USA now and quite possibly going to be made into law because of nutbars like you) are "privacy fanatics"????? What sort of alt-right loony bin are you spending time in? Well, hello Agent Smith!

Do you think that privacy rights protect pedophiles and online criminals working the dark web? What? Are you kidding? Do you think they care in the slightest about those supposed protections or feel in any way bound or affected by them? What are you saying?

You want to fight online predators and pedophiles? Fine, every single person here is with you. But your invention of 'privacy fanatics' and insistence that they are a threat that we must respond to by locking up every freedom is exactly the same BS that is used to demonize the handful of antifa protesters or Black Lives Matter and justify even more state suppression and intimidation. Your arguments are either intentionally misleading and shameful or merely ignorant and seriously in need of some research from elsewhere than the Breitbart echo chamber.

If you didn't come on so strong I wouldn't respond so strongly, but man, whether you know it or not you're spouting some genuinely dangerous ideas in these volatile times.

He's an FCC shill.

I am absolutely blown away that after all this time people on this board still haven't realized that DH is an MLSE employee paid by Rogers/Bell. Seriously smh.

Never thought about it. Care to comment DH? Or would you rather protect your privacy?

[simmons21]

What do you think about Freedom mobile? They seem to be expanding into the wireless space.

I know this wans't addressed to me but I thought I'd interject here just a little. It's not that the CTRC doesn't allow new competitors (maybe true in the past), they actually actively encourage them. But for broadband/cable internet the infrastructure that was mostly created by the government has been claimed and then further groomed by they couple of major players. Laying new wire is extremely costly, so small third party companies have no choice but to piggyback off the bigger ones to create a small amount of competition in urban areas.

So even if you want to switch to someone like techsavvy or Start, fido etc. the same content and platforms will be controlled by the parent telecom. The lack of competition in North America makes net neutrality extra dangerous. No new venture capital backed company has anywhere near enough money to disrupt the "grandfathered" telecoms because their infrastructure is now as ubiquitous as oxygen.

Freedom Mobile uses their own towers yes, but their service is still struggling to keep up and the towers they own personally are only relegated to urban areas. So a vast majority of their network still needs to be covered by the big threes towers. They, public mobile (bought by Telus) mobilicity (bought by Rogers then shut down), tried to disrupt the market but all went bankrupt and they could only survive after being bought out by a big telecom in the end. Shaw now owns Freedom btw.

Sooo... panac?

Nah, no panacing necessary yet IMO, much of the fight in Canada has been won by the right side. just gotta keep applying that pressure d to these big telecoms though. Close out on shooters, body guys in the paint, don't give them much room to operate.