
As the U.S. Retreats, Canada Doubles Down on Net Neutrality - colinprince
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/12/canadanetneutrality/
======
Jerry2
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-
canad...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-canadas-
internet-wireless-rates-compare-with-international-prices/article31379589/)

~~~
elchief
Eh. I live in vancouver and pay $34/mo for fibre and $40/mo for unlimited LTE
+ calling.

I lived in Florida and my net taxes, incl health insurance was the same

~~~
zeep
In Florida, I pay $20/mo for 10mbps cable and it includes 5 cellphone lines w/
unlimited voice+text and 100mb mobile data... $12/month for each additional gb
or $45 for unlimited data, shared among the 5 cellphones.
[https://www.xfinity.com/mobile/plan](https://www.xfinity.com/mobile/plan)

To keep the $20/mo, I will have to call them after 1 year of service.

In Canada, isn't there a data cap on your fiber internet? I think I have
1tb/mo here for my cable internet.

~~~
ukyrgf
"I will have to call them" ends after a few years. I got brickwalleded trying
to renew my starter fees last time; they've raised rates so many times and
don't care (and added data caps).

------
smsm42
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?

~~~
jmknoll
I’m not familiar with Canadian law, but we can take an illustrative example
from US law. Say you want to stand in the town square with a sign and talk to
anyone who will listen about Yemen, or Black Lives Matter, or Universal Basic
Income. That is your right, and it’s protected by the First Amendment. Setting
up a website where you write about your opinions is likewise protected.
Eliminating net neutrality potentially makes it much harder for people’s
voices to be heard, much like the city government suddenly converting all
roads into toll roads for the duration of your protest. To me, silencing the
voices of the people, or allowing them to speak but not to be heard, impinges
on freedom of speech and assembly.

~~~
dingo_bat
> Setting up a website where you write about your opinions is likewise
> protected. Eliminating net neutrality potentially makes it much harder for
> people’s voices to be heard

All the protections and net neutrality didn't help The Daily Stormer.

~~~
Can_Not
Net Neutrality helped The Daily Stormer alot. There are no known instances of
any ISP, regional monopolies or not, throttling or censoring The Daily Stormer
on behalf of the ISP's customers.

You might be dishonestly conflating NN into a recent event where The Daily
Stormer couldn't find a web host or DNS registrar where inciting violence and
terrorism was not prohibited by their terms of service.

Whether or not The Daily Stormer has a right to be hosted is a different
debate, one that can only had in a world with Net Neutrality.

------
wyck
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.

~~~
dglass
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-f...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2017/12/ftc-fcc-outline-agreement-coordinate-online-consumer-
protection)

~~~
dd36
The FCC exempted ISPs from the arcane rules. Who would’ve sued to test that
allowance? Verizon again? Your first and second paragraphs are FUD. Your
second paragraph is also nonsense because Title II isn’t nationalization.
Ignoring the exemption, are companies operating under Title II nationalized? I
don’t know where this kind of ignorance comes from. I see comments like this
and can only assume it’s astroturfing or trolling but it has to be rebutted.

------
H99189
Let's please focus on breaking up ISP Monopolies, NN-like effects would be
achieved, and much more, by doing so.

~~~
thomastjeffery
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
> "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

~~~
DiThi
> 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.

Have you calculated how much does that really cost? I'd say it's several
orders of magnitude lower[0] than the consequence of other regulations that
are the real cause there are no more ISPs.

[0] (response to a comment I made wrongly stating it doesn't cost a cent)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891156)

------
brailsafe
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.

------
microcolonel
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.

~~~
SuperPaintMan
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.

------
codecamper
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.

------
acidtrucks
Are Canadian vpn services subject to NN regulations?

------
junkscience2017
before you get too excited...this is the same country that mandates that some
% of TV and radio content be "Canadian"

~~~
52-6F-62
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.

~~~
junkscience2017
in reality it means paying taxes so the CBC can make a shitty Canadian version
of Law And Order that no one watches

almost none of the "Canadian" content relates any national values...it is
almost uniformly just garbage remakes of US shows

~~~
robear
Canadian TV has made some iconic shows. I don't think any country has has a
show like Kids in the Hall. Degrassi Jr High, Mr Dressup, Today's Special,
Road to Avonlea, Being Erica, Street Legal, Beachcombers, Wok With Yan!,
Babar, Trailer Park Boys, Edison Twins, The Tudors, Just Like Mom, North of
60, ENG, Flashpoint, Friendly Giant, My Secret Identity, Da Vinci’s Inquest,
The Newsroom, You Can’t Do That on Television, Danger Bay, Traders, Fraggle
Rock, Catwalk, Dear Aunt Agnes, Hammy the Hamster, The Littlest Hobo, Passe
Partout, Polka Dot Door, The Green Forrest, Little Mosque on the Prairie,
Corner Gas, Arctic Air. Show me something derivative in that list.

~~~
52-6F-62
And thanks to Canadian patronage of the arts and media, creators of Fraggle
Rock including poets Dennis Lee and B.P. Nichol played influential roles in
productions of international acclaim like The Labyrinth and Dark Crystal. It
certainly doesn't stop there.

Let's not forget Second City Toronto, Rick Mercer, and newer comedic hits like
Fubar and Letterkenny.

------
basicplus2
The rest of the world needs to bypass the US with its internet routing.

~~~
justicezyx
At least China is doing that.

~~~
joecool1029
More than just them:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable)

~~~
mc32
>"[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
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
No security solution is full proof but it's a step in the right direction.

~~~
mc32
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
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...

------
miguelrochefort
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
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
> 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
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_.

