Net Neutrality and the Focus on the Consumer
Theme: Canada's Digital Content
Idea Status: +70 | Total Votes: 76 | Comments: 3
In this misuse of the term 'digital economy', a small set of recording associations have misled governments to impose Orwellian restrictions on the internet. The United Kingdom has made it mandatory for internet service providers to throttle and cut-off those who are suspected of sharing using BitTorrent, an open source platform that academia use for distributing course materials. This bill was pushed through in the wash-up period before the election, with no consultation with the public and collaborative scheming between political parties. RIAA Lobbyists used their paperback to force this bill on internet users.
The status quo is acceptable — perhaps introducing competition in the telecommunications sector would be the wisest move. There is no reason why I can get net neutral internet service in Manitoba from all competing parties but when in Ontario, all service providers somehow agreed to put download caps on my usage. Rogers and Bell are the only choices in some areas of Ontario, and for some reason (i.e. anti-trade laws not being applied), I have my speeds throttled and my downloads limited. I thought that when infrastructure improves, so should the service — but it seems to be the other way around.
If this 'digital economy' bill passes and it is hard to access all materials fairly, the children of the baby boomers will not forget when it comes their turn to elect.
aarondyck — 2010-05-14 12:05:02 EDT wrote
No comments are needed here, cparr got it 100% correct!
knocknock — 2010-05-17 18:51:17 EDT wrote
Net neutrality-that is, freedom from Internet companies deciding what and how the consumer can download-must be established as a key part of Canadian Digital Economy.
The Internet is a place for freedom of expression and choice, and while illegal activity should be prevented, it is NOT the job of ISPs to do this.
Boothie — 2010-07-08 03:58:43 EDT wrote
Hollywood has already shown the FCC that its next move is trying to get network-level copyright filtering. That would be a complete inversion of the end-to-end network principle, and an end to freedom of speech. Here's a quote from an authority: "In my opinion, we cannot have an open Internet if large corporate copyright holders can exploit overly burdensome copyright laws to sacrifice legitimate speech at the altar of trying to stop piracy."
By Gigi B. Sohn, President, Public Knowledge
Yale Law School, New Haven Connecticut
So it may seem that there are only a handful of "radical extremists" who have commented here, awareness is growing quickly, and the truth will surface that Hollywood and this government are conspiring to steal our freedom of speech, our fair dealing rights and our Internet. As Danux said: "It's not like they're supplying food, shelter, energy, or clothing. What they make is just a pleasant luxury, nothing more. Their product simply isn't worth the burden they are demanding society shoulders."
The public consultation period ended on July 13, 2010, at which time this website was closed to additional comments and submissions.
Between May 10 and July 13, more than 2010 Canadian individuals and organizations registered to share their ideas and submissions. You can read their contributions—and the comments from other users—in the Submissions Area and the Idea Forum.
- Date modified: