posted 12 June 2006 10:42 AM
In a vote of 321 to 101, the House voted to pass the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, known as the COPE bill.
This controversial telecommunications legislation would permit phone and cable companies to operate Internet and other digital communications service as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight.
THIS COULD MEAN NO MORE FREE ONLINE FORUMS, NO MORE SHARING MEDIA FOR FREE!
posted 12 June 2006 10:43 AM
I'm sorry to hear that. What was the NDP position on this issue?
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
posted 12 June 2006 10:49 AM
quote:Originally posted by arborman: I'm sorry to hear that. What was the NDP position on this issue?
I think he means the U.S. House of Representatives.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062
posted 12 June 2006 11:04 AM
oh goody, now we can pay through whatever orifice the greedy bastards prefer for every second we spend on the Net. Of course "privacy" will be of the utmost priority .... NOT.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
seander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6807
posted 12 June 2006 11:45 AM
Yes sorry it is the US house - but it will affect us probably equally as much.
spread the word
we should probably make our position known to the CRTC as well as our MP's
quote:Originally posted by Yossarian: I think he means the U.S. House of Representatives.
Oh. So this is international news, then, not national news (this being a Canadian web site). Then I'll move the thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
Ryaninfo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10510
posted 12 June 2006 09:14 PM
Regardless of which country this is in, what we need to do is spread the awareness. Americans and Canadians will call their representatives if they know that they might not be able to use sites like this or share video and pictures online.
Get the word out - I would recommend this video - http://coanews.org/netfreedom -but the one about the house or respresentatives is good as well.
Actually why doesn't Rabble post this video in their video section they have. As I understand it all that needs to be done is the Rabble webmaster needs to copy the code found here: (http://coanews.org/netcodes) and paste it into the website editor. In fact I think COA News has been encouraging websites to do this. Blogs and Myspace can do the same.
In fact I'll just paste it below to show you! You can watch it by clicking!
posted 13 June 2006 09:57 PM
All the talk around the CRTC (in Canada) involves telephone guidelines. I don't think some of our journalists have made the link from this to internet access.
Here's the latest:
quote: Harper government tells CRTC to lighten up on telecom regulation By Ottawa Business Journal Staff Tue, Jun 13, 2006 3:00 PM EST
Federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier wants Canada's two largest phone companies to have more freedom to set prices and fend off smaller competitors.
The federal government has tabled a proposed directive to the federal telecommunications regulator, the CRTC, instructing the commission to lighten up on regulation and do more to promote competition.
"Our government endorses the concept of reliance on market forces to the maximum extent feasible," Mr. Bernier told the 2006 Telecom Summit in Toronto.
Don't the first 2 paragraphs contradict one another? More leeway for big providers, but also more competition.
There will, I believe, be a delay in Canada for our phone companies to achieve what American companies are attempting. But it may impact surfing American sites almost immediately.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527
posted 13 June 2006 10:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by Ryaninfo: Wow I'm surprise yet again at how little people care about this topic. Don't any of you understand how important this?
I'm not at all uninterested in this. It's all-important, it's like trying to monopolize and license the printing press.
What I need to know, besides letting as many others as possible aware of this, what concrete measures can be taken? Maybe a thread in the "Activism" section needs to be started on this.
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662
posted 13 June 2006 11:16 PM
Here's a thought. Could violating Net Neutrality be chalenged under article two of the US constitution, in that it is a violation of free speech on the internet?
From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527
posted 13 June 2006 11:22 PM
Already done, I started a thread in theactivism section.
[Dear moderators, I hope you don't close any of these threads because you consider them redundant, and if they are, all the better for such an important issue, no?.]
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527
posted 13 June 2006 11:29 PM
quote:Originally posted by Left Turn: Here's a thought. Could violating Net Neutrality be chalenged under article two of the US constitution, in that it is a violation of free speech on the internet?
Interesting. But it seems this is being treated as a matter of telecom regulation, not a matter of free speech. Duh, yes, the two are directly related, but how has that prevented television from being dominated by corporations?
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527
posted 14 June 2006 12:01 AM
Just watched the video. The legislation does not squelch free speech. Not directly anyways. It allows Internet providers to choose which websites will be more accessible - easier, faster and cheaper to access - than others.
Maybe it's little regulatory detail that people will easily get bored with. This approach to enclosing the Internet is creeping and insidious, as usual.
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
The Naked Gord Program
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12709
posted 14 June 2006 12:47 AM
quote:Originally posted by Ryaninfo: Wow I'm surprise yet again at how little people care about this topic. Don't any of you understand how important this?
The major thing imho is that this is all very technical.
Nobody will really understand exactly what the telco's want to do since even moderate knowledge computer users won't really *get* what this is about and if they do they'll just think it's a tactic to quash P2P programs which it *could* be - but most likely not.
The two videos I've seen on this (this one and this one from Moby) give some information however they don't really seem to address how this would actually work in the marketplace and tend to go for a mainly "the world is falling" type of message. I'd like to see that Democracy Now segment they showed in the piece linked above your message. If someone explained, with the technical knowledge, explained *exactly* how this would affect people in a factual point form I'm sure this would spread across the internet. Moby screaming into a camera, frankly, makes this entire thing seem like a joke. I'm actually ashamed of Moby watching that piece.
Most people seem to think of the internet as a sort of wild wild web and can't really understand how this could work.
From these two videos and a google news search on this it *sounds* like they'll be using the revenue they gain from this to expand the speed of their service and in turn will into a sort of "Internet 2" like what many universities have - only this one will be a version of "pay tv" with everybody else on the standard high speed dsl/cable.
If it's just that then, meh, it's just that - not a huge deal. Basically it'll create a ultra speed tier higher than the regular access we get now where "pay tv" style services like HBO can be bought and viewed legally. No big deal since it'll be just like now - if I want to download Democracy Now I'll just start it before I go to bed and get it when I get up.
If they want to do this by throttling the current internet access speeds then there's a problem - as it blocking sites but this is already happening even without this law. One of the Google News articles or the piece above mentioned one of the major US telco's blocking a website that criticizes their company. Telus did the same thing with their union's website awhile ago.
The solution? Don't use Telus. If Bell does that, or starts to limit my download access to "non-premium" access like Democracy Now! then I'd be gone. And Bell knows that since they're the last major provider around that offers unlimited bandwidth for uploading/downloading.
There are plenty of smaller outfits selling internet service. Ottawa's National Capital Freenet is even offering DSL (if I was in Ottawa that's what I'd be on) so it's entirely possible for the public sector to completely quash this just by selling their service for the price it costs them to offer it.
Then there's also the private sector competition. Google is one of the strongest opponents of this however there's also been talk of a national, free, Google Wi-Fi service (http://wifi.google.com even redirects to the google.com homepage) which could make things *more* democratic online if anyone in the country with a $50 wi-fi card in their computer/pda can access the internet for free anytime they want. The speculation is that it'll be ad based entirely like the old Net Zero days.
Then there's David Miller's wi-fi city plan for Toronto.
I'd still like a more concise, academic, description to exactly how this'll fuck up the internet for the average joe before I'd jump on board telling people to be worried about this (since I'd have to know exactly why it's messed up) however if you want to stop corporations from controlling the internet generally, and I'm so with you there, I'd love to find a way to enable NCF to offer DSL internet access across the country.
If you're controlling your content then it doesn't matter if it's legal to do this or that. This whole "net neutrality" thing just seems to be a symptom of a larger problem with corporate media that people seem to be getting by going online for their news to sites like this. If Bell, AT&T etc does this they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot just like how the music industry has done with downloading.
People will just move to services which don't do this (NCF, Miller's Wi-Fi plan, the speculated Google wifi service) or even just a text only Democracy Now page where people pay an at cost price to order a monthly DVD of Democracy Now! as a last resort.
Having said that a national alternative to coporate media like NCF DSL would completely solve all concerns. I would sure like to give my $50 I'm paying to Bell now for DSL to the public sector - I'm sure I'm not the only one in the 905.
From: http://www.pmflaccid.da.ru - Watching Stephen Harper | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
seander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6807
posted 14 June 2006 11:17 AM
The issue is that the ISP's will decide sites and content come through fast and which ones come though slow. So the corporations will pay for better service and those who can't will be slow and not able to compete.
this is completely changes the net. Call/email/write The CRTC, your MP and any other politicians involved in this issue.
-We need our own "SAVE THE INTERNET" campaign in Canada.
unfortunately we don't have a version of FreePress (the media policy watchdog) in Canada. Does anyone know of an organization that would take up this fight?
quote:Originally posted by The Naked Gord Program:
There are plenty of smaller outfits selling internet service. Ottawa's National Capital Freenet is even offering DSL (if I was in Ottawa that's what I'd be on) so it's entirely possible for the public sector to completely quash this just by selling their service for the price it costs them to offer it.
................ People will just move to services which don't do this (NCF, Miller's Wi-Fi plan, the speculated Google wifi service) or even just a text only Democracy Now page where people pay an at cost price to order a monthly DVD of Democracy Now! as a last resort.
Yes, but according to the news article above, the feds are trying to strengthen the hand of the big players while weakening the small providers and seemingly attempting to derail them. So "just switching" may not be an option at all.
BTW -- you're paying $50 a month for Bell? That seems steep. I pay $30 to be with Telus (no, I'm not really happy about that...)
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
seander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6807
posted 14 June 2006 03:59 PM
The big ISP's would not spend millions lobbying to get the government to abadon net neutrality if there was a good possibility that small or alternative ISP's could eat away at their market share.
From: Newmarket, Ontario Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
Ryaninfo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10510
posted 15 June 2006 10:05 PM
NDP and Green Party should get out and express they are pro net neutrality. It would make it a point of discussion and make the conservatives defend their anti open net perspective.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
posted 15 June 2006 10:13 PM
I suspect the conservatives would say what the republicans are saying: They're just trying to regulate pedophiles who are operating over the internet.
Tough on paedophiles is a proven vote getter.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Ryaninfo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10510
posted 17 June 2006 07:32 PM
I already asked this in a different thread on the same topic, but I did not get a response from rabble, so hopefully this thread will be different...
This question was already been raised - can someone from rabble please answer the question. I know there is a rabble moderator who seems to constantly monitor all threads. This is a fairly popular one, so I'm sure the moderator will see it. Please answer the question.
We need to use all avenues to get the word out - if anyone knows of other blogs and sites like this, I would suggest to them to do the same.
I know that the producer gave everyone the right to post the video so that should not be an issue.
Also Steve Anderson - the producer - Reported for rabble in the past so I'm sure they could ask if they are unsure.
posted 17 June 2006 07:57 PM
I moderate babble, but I do not work for the rabble podcast network, although Charlotte, the producer, and I do communicate about rabble-wide editorial projects.
If you want to suggest something for the rpn, you should probably contact her. You can reach her at cscott(at)rabble(dot)ca.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
seander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6807
posted 19 June 2006 04:25 PM
I didn't know that RPN was seperate from the rest of Rabble? I would have thought that anyone in the rabble team could bring this up to the people working on RPN, if they wanted to that is.
From: Newmarket, Ontario Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
Email this thread to someone!
posted 12 June 2006 10:42 AM
