City
Network Neutrality? Nonsense!
Strategic and restrictive bundling of services, blocked access (targeted censorship), and selective throttling of bandwidth (don't fuck with my legitimate torrents!) are a few of the "net neutrality" violations that Canadian service providers are getting away with.
Rogers and Bell are notorious for a few reasons. They have a strangle hold on the telecom/internet/tv market (i.e. they're operating as monopolies) and they've (de)revolutionized the concept of customer service.
Check out this CityTV interview with University of Toronto professor Andrew Clement (Information Studies) by tech reporter Amber Macarthur, and feel free to vent with me here.
Discussion
12 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Unfortunately, it may be too late for us to do anything against these monopolies. Power, once taken, is never given back...at least not without a fight. They have the power, they have the money and the resources...who are we? That may sound pessimistic, but what are we gonna do? Boycott? Please.
The time to fight this, I'm afraid and believe, has long since passed. I honestly think that nothing short of all-out revolution will undo what the corporations have set in motion. One company controlling everything. Soma anyone?
The privatization of the country's telecommunications infrastructure may have been wrought with good intentions (believing in the "magic of the marketplace" and so on), but it seemed to have lead to a two-party system of service and programming with no room for any real change.
Secondly, it is not too late to fight for concepts like net neutrality. Laws can be made by the people and we can force corporations to abide by them. Complete political apathy leads us to bread lines and conscription. I agree that there are dim hope, at best, for any leverage with the telco powers that be, but we do not need wires for all of our consumer infrastructure. Certainly, within major urban centers (read: not the distant suburbs), high return investments could be made in competitive broadband rates. The trick of course is that any company seeking to deliver this broadband cheaply and efficiently has the following obstacles to overcome:
1. Paying Bell et al for Internet trunks (hello re-regulation)
2. Billing Infrastructure / Customer Database (companies who already have a billing system would have an advantage - alternatively, could we skip the paper and save some trees?)
3. Critical Mass of Subscribers (stealing customers from their locked-in accounts is hard because of telco bundles and the fact that people are often too lazy to switch)
4. Profit Margin - Return per wireless area of service (has to be enough people per cost of access point)
5. Technology - cheaper WiMax would help immensely; profit margin would be much better than with 802.11g
I'm sure there are a bunch of other hurdles to overcome but it is certainly not an impossibility. Don't fret! Be optimistic! Write to your MP/MPP! Urban networks may be able to sweeten the pot by having the added bonus of localized content. Glocalization ahoy!
http://www.handsoff.org/
You knw I'm not excactly sure of the specifics but i believe Rogers has already been engaging in traffic shaping for some time which if you use Bit torrent slows it down. I have also heard from some that
Continuing where i left off, Rogers is engaging in traffic shaping in a bid to keep its bandwidth down. This is very much about what network neutrality if they are already slowing down the use of things like bit torrent, it will not be long before they establish a fast - slow lane?
Brian: Personally i do not take favorably to the idea of strong legislation to preserve the freedom of the internet. The internet is free very simply because it is not regulated. Once you open it to some regulation, by business people..it might be a slippery down hill slope from there. <--what Chris said
Steve: The fight is not over yet. It is up to netizens and hacktivists the world over to continue to fight to protect the net and Keep information free. The NN movement in the U.S. is doing well. I don't personally, i feel that we must prevent as best as we can the internet from being carved up into pieces.
I am a big champion of the Open source revolution..whilst it has a long way to go yet..Governments re: Tories in UK are already warming to the idea of OS principles/philosophy exported into real politics. If that is the case, no way will they allow corporations to carve up the internet.
Cheers guys
Traffic control would create unique business opportunities for advertisers; and within these relationships exists the potential for further market dominance.
One would argue that a fundamental conflict of interest exists. By controlling both the service and its content - whether it be through TV programming or internet traffic control - the means by which we communicate is not left in the hands of the citizens or the market, but those of the corporations.
When democracy works, legislation speaks for the will of the people. And if government truly is representative, regulation would speak primarily to the interests of the consumer, not the shareholder.