Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Your Rights Online

Net Neutrality Debate Intensifies In Canada 163

Posted by Soulskill
from the something-to-talk-about-until-the-hockey-playoffs dept.
MrShaggy tips us to news that the debate over Net Neutrality in Canada is coming to the forefront following the recent discovery that Bell Canada was throttling P2P traffic on the access it had sold to wholesalers. Michael Geist's blog notes a video recording of comments from a member of the Canadian government, as well as coverage from Canadian media. From Ars Technica: "The Canadian government has in the past pushed the CRTC to deregulate the telecom industry, an approach still backed by Minister of Industry Jim Prentice. Prentice also wants to stay out of the current net neutrality debate, which would seem to be a de facto vote against the idea. He was asked in the House of Commons this week whether his government would do anything about the current Bell/Rogers traffic-shaping controversy. According to the Globe & Mail, Prentice said only that "we will continue to leave the matter between consumers on the one hand and Internet service providers on the other."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Net Neutrality Debate Intensifies In Canada

Comments Filter:
  • "The Canadian government has in the past..."

    Does that only strike me as having come straight out of a South Park episode?
  • What the hell. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by moogied (1175879) on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:18AM (#22961066)
    Is anyone else really confused about these ISP's aren't being sued to oblivion for breach of contract?? I'm no expect(ok, I work with wan lines pretty often, but still), but if I have a serious line(say, a t3?) and I find out the SOB ISP is throttling ANY of my data(or even reading it), I will bring an unholy hell of a lawsuit upon them. The likes of which makes most lawyer's cry themselves to sleep. What the hell is going on??
    • Re:What the hell. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jugalator (259273) on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:24AM (#22961088) Journal
      But isn't this sort of thing traditionally covered in the fine print of the contract?
      • Re:What the hell. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Gazzonyx (982402) on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:40AM (#22961146)
        Usually, though, a good amount of the fine print doesn't stand up in court.

        I think the fine print usually equates to putting on a really thick winter coat under a bulletproof vest; yeah, it's technically extra protection, but if you're at the point where you need it, barring a miracle, you're probably already screwed. You can put anything in a contract, but if it says that you don't have to support your other obligations within the contract, it won't stand.

        IANAL and I only took 1 business law class in high school, so I'm more than likely wrong. ;)
        • by kwandar (733439)
          Actually I filed a complaint about Rogers with the Competition Bureau for misleading advertising, and while they were very polite and actually did get back, they said that due to the lack complaints (this was a few months back)and their limited resources, they would not be taking it on at that time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They're not throttling dedicated lines, they're throttling oversold DSL/Cable and it's covered in AUPs. Neither is there anything wrong with traffic shaping, I don't want my SSH/FTP connections slowing to a crawl because some drooling tard is bit-torrenting Hentai with a high upload ratio.

      Net neutrality is a different debate entirely.
      • Re:What the hell. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by electrictroy (912290) on Friday April 04, 2008 @05:56AM (#22961352)
        Who's to say that your Downloads are any more important than the Hentai downloads?

        In a society where all our treated equally under the law, such a distinction cannot be made.
        • by jayp00001 (267507)

          Who's to say that your Downloads are any more important than the Hentai downloads?

          In a society where all our treated equally under the law, such a distinction cannot be made.

          That's the problem withh p2p protocols like bittorrrent. They essentially exploit the fact that the more streams you have the more bandwidth you get, thus (depending on how you look at it) either making their download have higher priority or make yours have a lower priority.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Bittorrent doesn't segment its transfers for speed. The transfers are to and from different hosts - they are segmented for swarming, for the distributed nature of the protocol.

            Segmented TCP transfers such as with download managers should not be, with modern TCP stacks, normally faster than single ones except in cases of major packet loss (in which case the network is already screwed).

            Bittorrent is dependent on lots of other networks; it goes slower than a single TCP transfer from a fast network.

            Thanks to mo
          • Re:What the hell. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Raistlin77 (754120) on Friday April 04, 2008 @07:42AM (#22961772)
            Regardless, it's not my fault or problem that my Hentai torrents are slowing your SSH/FTP connections to a crawl, it is the fault of the ISP that you paid for bandwidth which you are not getting and your fault for continuing to pay them. Why should my Hentai torrents be faulted when I am merely using what I paid for?
            • Yes, it is your torrent client's fault. Because a torrent client is on 24/7 and opens up hundreds of connections at a time, it grabs an unfair proportion of the bandwidth. By contrast, a web browser only opens 2-4 connections at a time, and once it has completed fetching the page, it disconnects.

              See http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080327-one-technical-key-to-net-neutrality-solving-tcp-congestion.html [arstechnica.com]
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by AioKits (1235070)
                If he is promised 6M on the download, and that's what he uses, then I will have to disagree with you. It doesn't matter if he uses the pipe getting hentai (care to share?) or is using it to chuck linux ISOs about. He is not using it beyond the specifications outlined. He is using 6M and no more.

                You're missing the real problem. I'm gonna pull numbers out of my ass, because I have sinus problems and pulling them out my nose right now would prove impractical. If net company X has a total of 100M of ban
                • by anethema (99553)
                  Sure, but don't think that overselling is a bad thing. No ISP on earth doesnt oversell it's data connection.

                  Here is an ISP I do some work for.

                  http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2207/2387674726_e4d4654e34_o.png [flickr.com]

                  It is a 20 meg unmetered pipe, but he has numerous 10 meg burst piped customers (then throttled down to 2 meg). As you can see he has only exceeded 10 megabits a few times at peak hours.

                  You have to watch a graph like this (using cacti,snmp scanner w/rrdtool etc) and see if you're banging off the limiter. I
                • The only way to get the guaranteed, fixed bandwidth you're describing is to run a fixed connection between the end-points. Nobody wants to run a zillion cables everywhere, so we converge our traffic into shared, common backbones.

                  The fairness problem happens when we get to the shared portions of the network. Since the bandwidth footprint of a bittorrent client is up to 1,000 times larger than a web client, the torrents always win the competition for the shared resource.

                  None of us should have a problem with
              • by kwandar (733439)

                You missed the point. He said:

                "Why should my Hentai torrents be faulted when I am merely using what I paid for?" [Emphasis Added}

                Why shouldn't you GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR?!

                • An excellent question! What, exactly, is he paying for?

                  1. He is paying for a connection from his LAN to the ISP. This connection is 6Mbps.

                  2. He is paying to have his packets forwarded from his ISP and the rest of the Internet. The speed of THIS forwarding depends on the combined throughput of the particular route taken by his packets.

                  3. He is NOT paying for a guaranteed 6Mbps endpoint-to-endpoint connection. When his 6Mbps of torrent traffic gets to the ISP, his packets HAVE TO SHARE with all the other
              • by nebular (76369)
                Traffic shaping from the ISP to the consumers desktop is absolutly a valid option for an ISP. But traffic shaping wholesale access is an entirely different thing. Overselling your pipes is fine, but if you see a trend of usage that is climbing upward then you upgrade your capacity (and adjust prices accordingly) so your ISP clients can continue to do business as they had.
                Although in our case here in Canada, Bell has both increased prices and degraded services and now they're forcing that stratagy on the 3rd
        • Who's to say that your Downloads are any more important than the Hentai downloads?
          The fact that a 5-second delay in an SSH session makes working very difficult, while a 5-second delay in getting a movie that already takes two hours to download is practically meaningless. Certain protocols are more time-sensitive than others, and anyone that actually understands what Net Neutrality is really about knows this.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by sukotto (122876)
          Whatever I'm doing is always more important than whatever the other guy is doing...
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by yidele (947452)
        yeah, right. Let's all pretend that you couldn't tunnel content in ssh or that ftp was never used for wares ( or hentai for that matter).

        The idea of traffic grooming is fine as long as the customer knows what he is buying into. Most customers wouldn't know bandwidth grooming from overbooking & this is why it happens.

        If they did know, if they were made aware of the fact that their spanking new DSL advertised at XKb/s is worth X/10 worth of their favourite content, they'd likely choose alternatives --
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Shaping isn't realy the issue most ISP's will shape if theres high load on the network but this isn't what is happening with Bell and Rogers they don't have a bandwith problem in most places. In major cities there is a giant pile of dark fiber. Rogers ran as bundle as big as my head a couple of blocks from were I work 2 years ago, the point is the invasivess of the shaping based on application, meaning they are monitoing the protocols and what is in the packets not the overall bandwith thats the problem

        http [nowtoronto.com]
      • Here is what your not understanding or at least pretending to not understand; these people, the ISP's have bought and paid for X amount of bandwidth and transfer from Bell, brought that level of service to the central office where it is distributed of lines leased to the ISP's to the ultimate consumers, the ISP's customers, and they are not getting X amount of bandwidth and transfer from Bell, because Bell, the wholesaler, is throttling. A T1 line doesn't cost U$ 300.00 a month because it is blazingly fast
        • And this is why I have been "upgrading" many corporate customers from Comcast and AT&T dsl to T1s. Even after I talk them into it and they agree, they are still amazed when 1.5 meg turns out faster than 6 meg. And that is part of the problem...
      • by Pahalial (580781)
        You've completely misread this issue - they're throttling RESELLER lines now. You know, the only 'competing' ISPs who need to buy directly from Bell, who were previously not throttling anything and loudly advertising this fact to compete Bell who was already throttling torrents. And thus Bell is now throttling end-users with whom they have no contract, directly interfering with their competitors' business.

        More info on this in Geist's latest post, covering the Canadian ISP Association's filing [michaelgeist.ca] to the regu
      • by billtom (126004)
        I'd like to clarify what the previous poster said, which is something important in net neutrality debates.

        There are two types of filtering/throttling/shaping that are often lumped under the banner of net neutrality.

        Type 1: Modifying IP traffic based on type of traffic (e.g. web, voip, email, video, bittorrent, etc). But with no consideration of source or destination. For example, all email gets the same treatment.

        Type 2: Modifying IP traffic based on source and/or destination. For example, slowing down vide
      • by ppanon (16583)
        If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that they are throttling all encrypted traffic, because otherwise P2P traffic could just become encrypted (already happening) to masquerade as other encrypted traffic on port 22 or GRE/IPSec tunnels.
        Which means that your ssh connection, as well as that VPN to your workplace stand a pretty good chance of getting traffic-shaped. Still cool with that?

        First they came for the P2Ps...
      • by tkw954 (709413)
        I thought they were throttling all encrypted traffic, which would include your ssh session.
  • by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical.gmail@com> on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:40AM (#22961144) Homepage
    This is a case where a problem is being solved by law vice technical means.

    Much like the SPAM problem, you'll never be able to legislate the Internet.

    Consumers should vote with their money. If ISP#1 is throttling, then stop subscribing. No other ISPs in the area? Get satellite access.

    In the mean time, engineers should start working on things like TOR, Freenet, and encryption to ensure that the content on the wires stays free.

    In any event, if you allow government to make inroads into what can and can't be legislated online, pretty soon, they'll legislate everything.

    This is one Pandora's Box that should not be opened.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by morari (1080535)
      I suffered with satellite for years. I was among the first one several different systems. I remember having to upload with a dial-up modem in the beginning! If I had to choose between going back to satellite or having a throttled cable connection, I'd choose the throttled cable connection without batting an eye. It may be throttled, but at least P2P activities aren't blocked altogether and threatening to push you over the pitifully small and ridiculously overpriced bandwidth limit.

      Only recently was I able

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04, 2008 @05:16AM (#22961248)
      So basically consumers in this case have 3 choices: Satellite(slow), Cable(throttled), DSL(throttled).

      How are they going to vote with their wallet? No matter what they choose, they're supporting sub-standard internet. This seems to me a case in which the ISPs need to be regulated because they have a monopoly.
      • Lots of well-intentioned people involved with the "Net Neutrality" debate have the right idea, but are fighting the wrong war. The IMPORTANT battle is for "Last-Mile" neutrality. If AT&T is allowed to provision 6.0m/512k DSL for their own subscribers, they should be EQUALLY required to allow independent ISPs to get local loop access to their OWN customers at the same speed... and should pay AT&T the exact same monthly provisioning charges that AT&T's "official" DSL ISP pays. Ditto, for cable and
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by grcumb (781340)

      This is a case where a problem is being solved by law vice technical means. Consumers should vote with their money. If ISP#1 is throttling, then stop subscribing. No other ISPs in the area? Get satellite access.

      That approach, while very commendable and principled, isn't enough.

      I've written elsewhere about why this is the case [imagicity.com], but in a nutshell it comes down to this: Net Neutrality is a basic precondition to an end-to-end network like the Internet.

      Think of it as a law. It is, actually, if you read th

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LordLucless (582312)
      The government's already in there, by granting regional monopolies to telcos. In their defense, the last mile is a natural monopoly - you really don't want five different companies all digging up your property to lay their cables. The problem is, the government has granted this monopoly, which puts the telcos outside normal market forces, and then not bothered to keep a check on them. So the telcos have monopoly powers bestowed on them, with no governmental restraints. Economic theory basically guarantees t
    • Is that why Canada is 3rd in the world in broadband adoption and the US is 13th? Canada's government regulation of Bell Canada has had a direct impact on driving down the cost of high-speed internet (actual high-speed, not FCC-defined "high-speed"), while the US's deregulation has had a direct impact of limiting choice and increasing the costs for the American consumer. You keep banging the "government = bad" drum if you want. Good luck surfing Freenet at 2Mbps for $50 a month.
    • The best thing to do to drop Bell and bell related services(Resellers) and shout from mountain tops to everyone you know to do so aswell.. Regulations/Lawsuits blah blah.. They are not effective as a massive sudden drop in subscriber base.. With Regulations and Lawsuits they will allways keep looking for a Loophole or a way around it.. But if you suddenly lose a substantial portion of your customer base because if your business practices... you will think twice about trying anything similar again.
      • by Baron_Yam (643147)
        Assuming I don't want to go without Internet access, where exactly do you propose I take my business?
    • by Pig Hogger (10379)

      This is a case where a problem is being solved by law vice technical means.

      Much like the SPAM problem, you'll never be able to legislate the Internet.

      Consumers should vote with their money. If ISP#1 is throttling, then stop subscribing. No other ISPs in the area? Get satellite access.

      In the mean time, engineers should start working on things like TOR, Freenet, and encryption to ensure that the content on the wires stays free.

      In any event, if you allow government to make inroads into what can and can't

    • by Mashiki (184564)
      In many places you can't get satellite at all, you can not get the US version of satellite broadband at all because it's illegal to own, buy or pay for those dishes up here. In other places you can only get one cable provider and in others you can only get one phone provider!

      In my area you can get rogers or bell or various resellers. No wireless, no satellite. Sadly the only reason that we even have resellers available is because the government regulated and forced the greedy bastards to open up the netw
  • by Cordath (581672) on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:43AM (#22961148)
    Especially in a market dominated by a very small number of giants. When there's no competition, there's no way for consumers to vote with their wallets other than to do without internet access entirely.

    I'm fortunate to live in an area where there are *two* competing monolithic ISP's, but if they happened to both engage in these practices I'd be hooped.
    • by Coryoth (254751) on Friday April 04, 2008 @08:39AM (#22962272) Homepage Journal

      I'm fortunate to live in an area where there are *two* competing monolithic ISP's, but if they happened to both engage in these practices I'd be hooped.
      Here in Ottawa I have several ISPs to choose from, which includes NCF, a local cooperative that are much cheaper and have much better service and support for real problems (as opposed to the great support for only trivial issues that big ISPs have). The problem, of course, is that NCF delivers ADSL, and they get that by leasing from, you guessed it, Bell. Indeed, all the ADSL ISPs here lease from Bell, so if Bell is doing throttling, despite my apparent choice, I actually have almost none. The only other option is to lump for cable internet with Rogers -- which isn't really a choice given how badly Rogers sucks -- and I'm betting they do throttling as well. So no choice at all.
      • by dadragon (177695)
        What is really too bad is the distance limits of DSL. If DSL could be made to work farther away from a CO without curbside cabinets competitors could colocate a DSLAM in a Bell CO.

        Since there are a lot of cabinets out there on the street it's infeasible to colocate.
  • Strike! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ninjy (828167) on Friday April 04, 2008 @06:19AM (#22961430) Homepage
    The solution is easy... Canada should go on strike! To get more! More money! Like like, Internet money! Yeah that's it!
  • ... I already wrote to Prentice (prentice.J@parl.gc.ca) to point out that leaving consumers to face a "last mile" duopoly (Rogers and Bell in my case) is insane. If there were competition on the last mile I wouldn't be nearly as upset.

    I'd invite any other Canadian "consumers" who have traffic shaping on their "last mile", to do the same!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tony Hoyle (11698)
      Laying last mile cable is very expensive - I'd guess there's no law saying someone couldn't lay cable and compete it's just they'd have to charge 10* as much to get their investment back.

      In the UK we have much the same situation, with BT owning nearly all of the last mile cable (and the cable companies have said they can't afford to build any more cable, so most parts of the country can't get that and may never do). BT is under heavy regulation so that must offer access to that at competitive rates equally
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by kwandar (733439)
        Yes, the situation is the same here, except that they are doing traffic shaping on the last mile. Last mile however goes a little further than you state because while the wholesale ISP has infrastructure at a Bell Canada exchange, traffic has to go through copper wires, then through Bell servers to the exchange where the wholesale equipment is located (even if it happens to be at the same exchange, as data off lines is aggregated at a Bell server somewhere).

        We can purchase DSL from other ISPs, but they rel
    • by swordgeek (112599)
      Good luck with that.

      Jim is my MP. When the liberals were in power, he would come out to community events, stand on his (conservative) views, and try to represent the community. He also answered letters and appreciated comments on current issues.

      When the Conservative minority took office and he became a cabinet minister, he turned into a corporate-interest zombie. The only thing I've heard from him other than form letters in that time was one reply (eight months after I sent him a letter on the issue), expla
      • by kwandar (733439)
        It is interesting to hear from someone who is actually in his riding. I'm VERY surprised that even you are receiving these form letters.

        Hopefully you'll have a chance to remind him and your neighbors, in the next election, how poorly he has responded to the concerns of his constituency (not to mention thousands of others across the country).
    • Jim Prentice was also the one who was recently pushing a highly restrictive copyright bill.

      The bill has been quietly sidelined following substantial protest. Of course, it may resurface. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

      So, two things to conclude: (1) to his detriment, Prentice as a public servant will attempt to advance the interests of industry groups against public interest, and (2) somewhat to his credit, he is able to back down quickly under public pressure. Keep up the pressure.

  • This is one of (many) places where conservative economic/free market politics just don't work.

    While the right wing economists tout the free market as the solution to everything, arguing that an unregulated market is the only way to approach pretty much everything, there are cases where the market is dominated by 1/2/3 players that cannot be avoided. We, as consumers, are not able to vote with our dollars - we have no choice. We did have a choice - Bell was allowing ISPs to resell DSL and manage the data themselves, but when they realized that meant that people (who know/care about such things) were flocking to the unrestricted ISPs, they squashed that avenue to unrestricted net access.

    The other competitor, Rogers, hasn't opened their network up to competition (that i know of), so they can do whatever they feel like.

    That leaves us with the occasional small wireless isp with leases lines, satellite (slow), or of course, leasing our own line. Yes - we have options, but no, none of them are good for the consumer. Without government regulation, and with the small size of our market (ie: very little competition), the few major ISPs will control our destinies, and it's only a matter of time until they start with tiered data speed.

    Web - sure, fast as you'd like, it's highly compressible, proxyable, no big deal.
    Email - sure, but you can only have small attachments, but we'd prefer you use our free webmail service.
    Music? Only if you buy from our store (or from stores that we have deals with), otherwise, we're going to filter you. Otherwise, we'll limit you.
    Video? Only if you buy from our store (or from stores we have deals with). Otherwise, no bandwidth for you.
    Overall data? Sure, your unlimited plan will apply, if you shop in our stores. Otherwise, here's a cap. enjoy!

    I think the real problem is that Bell/Rogers/etc have been severely overselling their networks without paying the money to upgrade them. Our monthly fees have been slowly creeping up instead of dropping (you'd think I could get high speed internet for cheaper now than I did 10 years ago, but you'd be wrong, for the same level of service). Our connection quality has been dropping. The service level at the ISPs is consistently poor. However, Rogers and Bell are turning out huge profits every quarter. Why? Because they've managed to find a way to provide the minimum of service for the maximum of profit, and their shareholders love it. And ultimately, in todays world, the shareholder is the more important measure of a business than their customers. So long as the share prices stay up, the businesses will continue to do whatever they want. Once the prices start to slip, and they will, or once a better level of competition is introduced/forced, then we might see customer focus becoming a priority.

    There are some that say any regulation in business is bad for the economy, that we should let businesses set their policies, and the customers will go where they feel is best. But when there are no reasonable choices, when there is no competition, then the customer loses and big business wins. The government must step in and regulate, until such time as market conditions exist to enable the free market to take a go at managing themselves again.

    Positive reinforcement hasn't worked so far, it's time for negative reinforcement. Bad doggy, no treat for you.

    $0.02 CDN.

    • Our monthly fees have been slowly creeping up instead of dropping (you'd think I could get high speed internet for cheaper now than I did 10 years ago, but you'd be wrong, for the same level of service).

      Funny you'd say that. I have the same experience in Silicon Valley. 8 years ago, I got a 1.5Mb/384Kb connection for about $50. Now I'm getting the same exact line for $20 more (though it's naked instead of coupled with a phone), but line noise is so bad that I'm throttled down to half speed up and down. So

  • by hey (83763) on Friday April 04, 2008 @09:11AM (#22962598) Journal
    Might be a good time to start up a ISP that doesn't throttle.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chonnawonga (1025364)
      You're right, of course, but it would take a colossal amount of capital. This is where we run into the last mile issue: unless you're willing to dig up people's lawns and put in hard connections to people's houses, or you find some way to deliver wireless in a reliable and affordable way, you're stuck going through Bell's or Rogers' connections, and we're back to square one. Bell's lines were built with support from public funding. It's time for the public to step in and say, "We've all paid for this; we s
    • by billtom (126004)
      Do you have the billions of dollars required to lay new wires to everybody's house (or to put up new antennas for broadband wireless)?

      If not, then, in Canada (and in most parts of the United States, and most other countries for that matter) your ISP will be sending data through wires controlled by either the big telephone regional monopoly of the bit cable regional monopoly. Because those companies own the "last mile" wires.

      And they will throttle your traffic. You think you'll be able to stop them? You're w
      • by Pig Hogger (10379)

        If not, then, in Canada (and in most parts of the United States, and most other countries for that matter) your ISP will be sending data through wires controlled by either the big telephone regional monopoly of the bit cable regional monopoly. Because those companies own the "last mile" wires.

        They "own" it solely by virtue of the government granting them the right to put up lines FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELIVERING A ***PUBLIC*** SERVICE.

        And they will throttle your traffic. You think you'll be able to stop th

        • by billtom (126004)
          You're arguing about the way things should be. I'm telling you how they actually are in the real world.

          In an ideal world, yes absolutely, the government should force the phone company to provide real open access to competitors; for all the reasons you listed.

          But that hasn't happened. And your ranting (WITH LOTS OF CAPS) isn't going to make it happen. If you have some concrete, realistic suggestions about how to make governments do the right thing, I'd love to hear them. The whole world would love to hear th
    • by Duhavid (677874)
      Let us know how that works out for you. :-)
    • by ratboy666 (104074)
      You can't lay the wires or optical -- that's a government grant (allows the phone and cable companies to dig up non-subscribers property to lay the lines). And, believe me, you WON'T get that right.

      Which leaves satellite or wireless... and that won't get you "unthrottled super speed".

      This IS a monopoly. And should, as such, be government regulated.
    • by yabos (719499)
      That's what a lot of the 3rd party ISPs here do already. The problem is that Bell owns the last mile phone line and the ATM network that 3rd party traffic flows over. Bell throttles the traffic on their ATM network before it gets to the other ISPs. No one company is going to be able to lay their own phone lines except in a limited area which some small towns have.
  • The Baltimore Business Journal [bizjournals.com] has discovered the story and does a good job of explaining the stakes for small business.
  • Thanks, Jim (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fishwallop (792972) on Friday April 04, 2008 @02:20PM (#22966834)
    The industry minister's response is like saying in the controversy concerning battles at the arena, the Industry Minister said "we will continue to leave the matter between the Christians on the one hand and the lions on the other".

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...