PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Bell & Telus to end unlimited internet by 2010?



mr.x
Jul 15, 2008, 9:43 PM
Canadian Internet Service Providers Plan Net Censorship

Mike Finch
American Free Press
July 12, 2008

A net-neutrality activist group has uncovered plans for the demise of the free Internet by 2010 in Canada. By 2012, the group says, the trend will be global.

Bell Canada and TELUS, Canada's two largest Internet service providers (ISPs), will begin charging per-site fees on most Internet sites, reports anonymous sources within TELUS.

"It's beyond censorship, it is killing the biggest ecosystem of free expression and freedom of speech that has ever existed," I Power spokesperson Reese Leysen said. I Power was the first group to report on the possible changes.

Bell Canada has not returned calls or emails.

The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether.

"We had inside sources from bigger companies who gave us the information on how exclusivity deals are being made at this moment between ISPs and big content providers (like TV production studios and major video game publishers) to decide which web sites will be in the 'standard package' offered to their customers, leaving all the rest of the Internet unreachable unless you pay extra subscription fees per every 'non-standard' site you visit," Leysen said. "We knew the source to be 100% reliable, but we also knew the story would be highly controversial if we released the information. We did it because we knew that we'd get more official confirmations once we'd come forward with it. And indeed that is what happened. Dylan Pattyn, who is writing the soon-to-be published article for Time Magazine, received confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and TELUS after we released the information."

The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package. Such plans would likely favor major news outlets and suppress smaller news outlets, as the major news outlets would be free (with subscription), and alternative news outlets, like AFP, would incur a fee for every visit.

"The Internet will become a playground for billion-dollar content providers just like television is," said Leysen. "It won't be possible for a few teenagers in their parents' basement to start a small site like E-bay that then grows out to be the next big thing anymore. Right now the Internet belongs to those with the greatest ideas. In the future, it'll belong to those with the biggest budgets."

With plans in Canada uncovered, I Power thinks that companies in the United States and other nations are also planning similar actions.

"By 2012 ISPs all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These 'other' sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet," Leysen said.

Such a subscription plan could possibly restrict free speech far beyond even the current restrictions set by the governments of communist China. Not only would browsing be limited, but privacy would be invaded, as every web site viewed would likely be recorded on a bill in a manner similar to a phone bill.

Why would the ISPs institute such a plan? One word: money.

"This new subscription model is commercially far more beneficial to them than how it is now," Leysen said. "If Fox wants to launch a new television show online, they'll have to pay big money to all major ISPs to ensure that their new show will be offered and pushed in the 'standard package' of sites/services/channels that people will get through their Internet access. Plus ISPs will also gain extra revenue out of people trying to access the rest of the Internet, as they'll pay extra subscription fees for every web site they visit."

But it's not just the big ISPs that stand to gain.

"Marketing and big budget 'content-pushing' just doesn't seem to work on the Internet, and this is something that several industries want fixed. ISPs know this and will benefit greatly by fixing this for the marketing and entertainment industry," Leysen said.

The ISPs are said to be confident they can institute such plans through deceptive marketing and fear tactics.

"The Internet will be more and more marketed as a place full of child pornography and other horrible illegal activity in order to get people on their [the ISP's] side once they start restricting it and make it 'safer,'" Leysen said. "Unless we really make a stand for this and make sure that mainstream media thoroughly covers the issue, the whole thing will be eased in with proper marketing to make sure that most mainstream customers won't make a big deal out of it. They will only realize what was lost long after it's gone."

Kevin_foster
Jul 15, 2008, 9:44 PM
Then all it would take would be to have one company start up and offer everything for a low price and they would have 100% of the marketshare. This would be Telus' and Bell's end..

sync
Jul 15, 2008, 9:50 PM
hack the planet.

1ajs
Jul 15, 2008, 9:52 PM
Then all it would take would be to have one company start up and offer everything for a low price and they would have 100% of the marketshare. This would be Telus' and Bell's end..
yea but one problem whos guna spend the billions to build the infer structure for their own backbone?


but this whol thing is scary if they do this the net will die realy fast as a valuble tool and kill the greatest thing to ever happen a link to all 4 corenrs of the world from anywhere

Kevin_foster
Jul 15, 2008, 10:24 PM
yea but one problem whos guna spend the billions to build the infer structure for their own backbone?


but this whol thing is scary if they do this the net will die realy fast as a valuble tool and kill the greatest thing to ever happen a link to all 4 corenrs of the world from anywhere

They wouldn't have to spend billions. If Telus and Bell decided to tier their internet, what is stopping Shaw from laughing at them and offering the same service they always have? They would have to agree to work with each other to work against the consumer.

Also, out of interest, here is a map of the internet :)
http://advice.cio.com/themes/CIO.com/cache/Internet_map_labels_0.pdf

bigcanuck
Jul 15, 2008, 10:27 PM
Not going to happen. Too difficult to restrict site access based on your 'subscription'.

ReginaGuy
Jul 15, 2008, 10:43 PM
two words: Conspiracy theory.

This isn't going to happen. And if it does, there's always a way to get around it.

J-MAN
Jul 15, 2008, 11:16 PM
well that would simply be the end of my home computer:D

hello library computer :cheers:

1ajs
Jul 15, 2008, 11:23 PM
well i could see there being a nich for what bell and telus are doing for parents and schools........ but meh its still screwy

1ajs
Jul 15, 2008, 11:24 PM
two words: Conspiracy theory.

This isn't going to happen. And if it does, there's always a way to get around it.

or so we hope ;)

1ajs
Jul 15, 2008, 11:25 PM
Not going to happen. Too difficult to restrict site access based on your 'subscription'.
no it isn't all they have to do is take your modem mac and track it and lock it down

vid
Jul 15, 2008, 11:30 PM
Does the federal government have the ability to dissolve private corporations? I'm pretty sure it can do that to banks but what about telecommunications companies? Telecommunications is in their sphere of responsibility.

bigcanuck
Jul 16, 2008, 3:07 PM
no it isn't all they have to do is take your modem mac and track it and lock it down

Mac addy may police customer premise equipment but it's the dns side that's hard to police. You'll also need the commercial sites and DNS servers to agree to never change IP's (or to provide all ISP's with updated IP's IMMEDIATELY). If Yahoo moves to a new IP or offers a new sub-domain, it'll have to let every ISP know that they're at a new IP or that the sub-domain should be on the acceptable list.

Aylmer
Jul 16, 2008, 8:57 PM
That would be the end of a small world afterall.

:(

Nutterbug
Jul 16, 2008, 9:48 PM
They wouldn't have to spend billions. If Telus and Bell decided to tier their internet, what is stopping Shaw from laughing at them and offering the same service they always have?

The CRTC?

graupner
Jul 17, 2008, 1:06 AM
The CRTC?

and why would the CRTC force Shaw, Rogers or Videotron to change their product ??

This is not going to happen. The only way it could happen would be for all ISPs in Canada to agree to do this and then it would be collusion and declared illegal.
Impossible it happens in short or middle term, even long term.

Nutterbug
Jul 17, 2008, 1:15 AM
and why would the CRTC force Shaw, Rogers or Videotron to change their product ??

Because government wants to regain control over information that goes around?

graupner
Jul 17, 2008, 1:37 AM
Because government wants to regain control over information that goes around?

Hum the CRTC is independant from the government. The government has no legal connection to the CRTC and in no way it could tell it what to do.

If it does, it would be illegal too and against the constitution.


Usually, the CRTC has been pretty much more consumer-oriented than bussiness-oriented.
Even if it has its flaws, the CRTC is usually doing a good job protecting canadian consumers as good as it can.

vid
Jul 17, 2008, 1:40 AM
If by protecting Canadian consumers you mean removing choice in the market place and subjecting us to some of the highest prices for telecommunications in the first world then, yes, it is protecting us. :koko:

crooked rain
Jul 17, 2008, 2:05 AM
Goody! I love corporate generated content. More pablum for the masses.

matt602
Jul 17, 2008, 2:12 AM
I'm totally not surprised that this is coming from Bell. I'd expect Rogers to pipe up about this in the next year, since they've got the cable monopoly.

cornholio
Jul 17, 2008, 8:43 AM
Doubt this would happen, though im sure pretty much all governments and corporations in the world would do absolutely everything in their power to help this happen.
In the end though this is one issue of a very few that I would be prepared to fight for, and by fight I really mean fight...not walking around with protest signs and complaining. The internet and ability to share information freely is one thing that needs to be protected at all costs by the public..all costs.

MolsonExport
Jul 17, 2008, 12:54 PM
I'm totally not surprised that this is coming from Bell. I'd expect Rogers to pipe up about this in the next year, since they've got the cable monopoly.

Yeah, with a little something added on your monthly bill: "To better serve our valued customers..."

Fvck Rogers. And Bell and the Beavers. And Telus and the stupid fish.

Open the market up to foreign competition.

sync
Jul 17, 2008, 1:29 PM
Yeah, with a little something added on your monthly bill: "To better serve our valued customers..."

Fvck Rogers. And Bell and the Beavers. And Telus and the stupid fish.

Open the market up to foreign competition.

amen.

vidgms
Jul 27, 2008, 2:44 AM
I don't think that limited internet will happen in the US anytime soon. This case might set precedent for unlimited internet in the US, might not, we will find out soon enough though.

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/I/INTERNET_REGULATION?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-07-26-02-44-32

Distill3d
Jul 27, 2008, 2:56 AM
ahh even more reason to hate Telus more then i do.

trist_p
Jul 27, 2008, 1:37 PM
I'm sorry, regardless of how little competition there is in the market, I don't think this will be more commercially viable than the system we have now.

First, why the fuck do we use the internet anyways? It certainly isn't to browse the commercially generated shit that we get on TV. In my mind, this new internet would be almost indistinguishable from TV in terms of content- you'll have your history channel, discovery, facebook channel. There's one big difference between the television and the internet- basically, the good TV content is generated by hollywood, TV studios, film-makers etc., where the internet is largely composed of user generated content- like this site. I would argue that it is this user generated content that attracts use to the internet more than anything else (except for the only REALLY successful pay-site models, that *cough* I never use...) Come on, would anyone use facebook if nobody posted pictures or commented on your wall? Facebook, wikipedia, ebay, youtube- everyone depends on next to free information. Would Google- the largest internet company in the world- let this happen to us!? What ever happened to their "do no evil" mantra?

Switching would be a nightmare- no more blogs, no more wikipedia, no more ssp. Now let me ask you this- why can't we have both? If there was a two-tiered distribution system that charged you through your internet bill for specific websites, as an add on instead of private fees through pay-pall, we could potentially have better, more sophisticated and fun websites. All the free, ad-supported stuff could tag along for the ride.

KrisYYC
Jul 27, 2008, 6:20 PM
I'm totally not surprised that this is coming from Bell. I'd expect Rogers to pipe up about this in the next year, since they've got the cable monopoly.

No they don't. Out west it's Shaw Cable systems. Rogers is stricly wireless and home phone.

mersar
Jul 27, 2008, 7:12 PM
Theres not really a Canada-wide monopoly for cable, theres really 3 players: Rogers (Ontario and east), Videotron (Quebec) and Shaw (western) plus the handful of really small market players

vid
Jul 27, 2008, 7:45 PM
Shaw Cable is feces. I'm so glad to not have Shaw Cable anymore!! :cheers:

If there is anything in Calgary that should be removed from Earth... it's Shaw Cable!!

Last summer, as punishment for not using Shaw, they "accidentally" disconnected my ADSL and telephone for a week! :rolleyes: This was while working on lines that have nothing to do with my apartment. No idea how the pulled it off, but great work, you beacons of ineptitude!!

KrisYYC
Jul 27, 2008, 7:53 PM
Shaw Cable is feces. I'm so glad to not have Shaw Cable anymore!! :cheers:

If there is anything in Calgary that should be removed from Earth... it's Shaw Cable!!

Last summer, as punishment for not using Shaw, they "accidentally" disconnected my ADSL and telephone for a week! :rolleyes: This was while working on lines that have nothing to do with my apartment. No idea how the pulled it off, but great work, you beacons of ineptitude!!

Wierd, Shaw is pretty good out here. Way faster internet than anybody else, even Rogers cable out East. I've never had an issue with Shaw whatsoever. Rogers wireless on the other hand....

shogged
Jul 27, 2008, 7:59 PM
Wierd, Shaw is pretty good out here. Way faster internet than anybody else, even Rogers cable out East. I've never had an issue with Shaw whatsoever. Rogers wireless on the other hand....

I got rid of shaw because they throttle bit torrent. Telus still doesn't, which is really nice. I use bit torrent for legal purposes and it really irked me when shaw kept calling me asking me why they were detecting high usage.

Plus a huge issue with shaw is the fact that you share your connection with everyone else on your street. At 5pm when everyone gets home from work/school, your internet can slow to a crawl depending on how many people in your zone have shaw. You won't have that problem with DSL

vid
Jul 27, 2008, 8:00 PM
My aunt has Shaw internet, and when I did a Speedtest check on it, it was barely 2000kbps!! I have ADSL and it averages 2,200 though I can go up to 5,000 if I don't mind interference on the phone. They also overcharge for TV, more than 60$ a month for about 55 channels on cable? No thanks. They just started their phone service this year too, and for the first five months or so, the whole system was messing up. When they enabled it, my whole neighbourhood lost it's Shaw cable and internet and they don't know why. They blamed the phone company (which is city-run) but the phone company said "they aren't our fibre optic cables". It took Shaw about a week to get it fixed. Their office is also located way out in the bush, which makes paying bills a pain in the ass.

Oh yeah, throttling. TBayTel doesn't do that. :notacrook: Probably won't even consider it. They charge 2.95 a month for unlimited text messaging, too. Beat that, Telus and Bell!

KrisYYC
Jul 27, 2008, 8:06 PM
I got rid of shaw because they throttle bit torrent. Telus still doesn't, which is really nice. I use bit torrent for legal purposes and it really irked me when shaw kept calling me asking me why they were detecting high usage.

Plus a huge issue with shaw is the fact that you share your connection with everyone else on your street. At 5pm when everyone gets home from work/school, your internet can slow to a crawl depending on how many people in your zone have shaw. You won't have that problem with DSL

I use torrents often and have never been throttled. A good torrent with lots of seeds and I get over 500kb/sec downloads. Telus you pretty much max out at around 250kb/sec.

And the sharing your connection with the neighborhood issue is a thing of the past. My speed never changes no matter what time of day. Though I know it used to be a problem. I remember a few years ago my brother's connection slowing to almost dial-up speeds at peak times.

vid
Jul 27, 2008, 8:39 PM
Your city's infrastructure must be newer than because just 8 months ago it was doing that here.

KrisYYC
Jul 27, 2008, 9:02 PM
Your city's infrastructure must be newer than because just 8 months ago it was doing that here.

Could be, Calgary was always a "battleground" city for Shaw and Telus. So I think both beefed up their infrastructure here considerably. Shaw did something big to theirs because it literally went from shitty speeds like you've seen to smokin fast in just a couple of years.

Boris2k7
Jul 30, 2008, 4:36 AM
My experience with Shaw has been much the same as KrisYYC's. And I am a heavy BT user and use a lot of bandwidth (like, 50GB a month?). I've had small problems here and there with my connection... but then again the service is pretty good. I was having problems a few months back and they sent a guy out the next morning, who took one look at the local box (on our front lawn), one look at our own connection, and swapped out our tie-in to the house for a new one - no charge. And it runs much more smoothly now as a result.

Shaw has also consistently upgraded its infrastructure in my area too.