+1 for OpenMedia
That's it.
Openmedia, a digital rights advocacy group, has quickly become one of Canada's leading civil liberties organizations. Established in 2008 by Steve Anderson, Openmedia has run a series of successful campaigns which have made it the bane of Canada's telecoms oligopoly. Past campaigns have focused on everything from net …
OpenMedia is doing some great work, but I find them a bit opaque. For a start, why wasn't founder Steve Anderson - or at least a current Board member - available for The Reg to interview? Meghan Sali's title is not mentioned in the article, but she appears far down the OpenMedia Who We Are page as a "Communications Specialist." I'm sure she's a swell person, but it's hard to get any real insight into an organization that leaves media relations to a junior flack, and makes the actual decision makers inaccessible. Trevor Pott has done enough work for The Reg and other outlets to have rated better than this.
Regarding the article, I think either OpenMedia or Trevor Pott might have pointed out that data caps are already on their way out in Canada. All the major ISPs now have un-capped plans, and prices are steadily coming down. There are two big reasons for this, neither of which has much to do with OpenMedia. First, there's real competition between ISPs, mainly because the CRTC mandated years ago that big Canadian wire owners must make bandwidth available at wholesale rates to smaller providers. Second, the two biggest ISPs, Rogers and Bell, have very different approaches. Rogers is surprisingly forward-looking, with plans to make its own cable TV operations obsolete. Bell is the reverse, and has repeatedly demanded that the CRTC tailor the rules to protect its archaic 'linear TV' business model. (The CRTC has declined, and instead gone out of its way to slap Bell down.)
However, the remarks about spying and the TPP are spot on. It's far too soon to "loathe" Trudeau, who has done some surprisingly good things since being elected. But the TPP will be his real test, and so far, there's every indication that he'll fail do the right thing and axe the odious totalitarian monstrosity. As in other countries. the decision will need to be influenced by massive demonstrations from the Canadian public. If OpenMedia can help make that happen, more power to them.
Like Trevor, I'm very glad that OpenMedia exists. I just wish it was a little less efficient and a lot more, well... open in its own operations. But I fear that this is a problem that afflicts all such political action groups - they quickly take on an institutional life of their own, and lofty ideals easily get subsumed in the day to day work of keeping the business going.
As much as I hate Detest Loath revile from this concept, it is a very solid way of ensuring better code and cleaner sites, as lazy or media heavy sites learn the concept "use only what is needed".
The Current model we have where its, "screw it" most people have decent broadband, why bother resizing that image / video mentality, cut down that code.
Same goes for lazy coding in regards to mores law!!
"mores law!!" -> Moore's Law
By the way, it's streaming video. Almost entirely. New video codecs have already delivered bandwidth savings. But then the resolution and quality goes up to consume yet more bandwidth.
It's not an insoluble issue. Our ISP and fiber connection support everyone in the house watching HD video all at once. Not an issue.
Fail. When the consumer is the one who pays by byte how on earth does it promote good code use on sites? There is no financial incentive for the site to change and bills dont have enough resolution to identify individual sites for the consumer.
The implication which you can't seem to grasp is that users would start to shun bandwidth hungry sites. Without the hits, those sites would have all the incentive in the world to either change or go out of business.
You've missed the point that I addressed specifically in my comment. Consumers don't have the technical nouse, time or inclination to identify bandwidth heavy sites and neither the sites themselves or the ISP's have any incentives to help them do so. Or are you somehow suggesting that consumers will all run out and install bandwidth monitoring apps and actually bother to use them. If you believe that then I have some AV to give away free that still wouldn't get installed by a big chunk of consumers even if their bank details depended on it.
Fail^2 sir.
Oh that's quite right Gordon, straight away you would be right.
But if it became the norm the amount of plugins for browsers that would be able to show you the cost of the site per byte transferred would be falling out your ears, and people would learn very quickly how to add them or they would even become a default built into all browsers.
When were talking everyday money, people tend to pay more attention.
I dispute your Fail x2 good sir, I demand a formal apology or guns at dawn !!
The same country that blocked this video, "The first honest Cable company", for "defamation" presumably of Canadian telecoms companies despite being produced by Americans and targeted to Americans. Maybe someone up in the Great White North felt it hit too close to home and couldn't be tolerated...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130904/10575524401/youtube-takes-down-hilarious-mock-cable-ad-over-totally-bogus-defamation-claim.shtml
One problem with your post - the video is most certainly available in Canada. Even the article you point to says that Google admitted to making a mistake.
Not that it detracts from the fact that here in Canada, cable companies really have WAY too much power, and too little product.
"One problem with your post - the video is most certainly available in Canada. Even the article you point to says that Google admitted to making a mistake.
Not that it detracts from the fact that here in Canada, cable companies really have WAY too much power, and too little product."
Or did Tech Dirt just make the entire thing up? None of the comments confirm that anyone but the author saw this issue. And the response from Google was from the same author.
UK magazine Hello! faked an entire interview with George Clooney, they made up quotes. And uses quotes from other sources with attribution.
Journalists are incentivized to fake stories.
The US could benefit from OpenMedia. We certainly need SOMETHING strong to try to oppose the Internet Axis of Evil that is Comcast, AT&T and their ilk. Unless Mexico is exempt, it would seem that all of North America is under the shadow and suffering high prices for internet access often less capable than that in many third-world countries.
I don't know who thought having a few hugely vertically and horizontally integrated companies in the media/telecom industry was a good idea. The original modest cable and phone companies bought up newspapers, TV and radio stations, cable stations, sports franchises, built mobile phone infrastructure, and basically stick it to customers big time. Thanks for the story Trevor, and thumbs up OpenMedia.
This is a very important point. In Canada, Bell, Rogers, Telus and Shaw own the vast majority of our home phone and cell phone services, internet, cable tv, tv and radio networks except CBC (which their client politicos the Tories were actively killing), almost all of the specialty cable channels, and some of the newspaper chains. When I had to go digital for tv I cut the cable and went OTA (and internet) partly (the other was the constantly increasing costs) because these oligopolies would then know through the digital encryption box what I was watching, when I was watching, and how long. It's too much control of our information sources in too few hands.
A few years ago I worked a lavish employee party Rogers threw for I think their 50th anniversary, so I've seen how much excess $ they have to throw around. Shaw, a cable and internet giant in the West, was able to buy up Canwest Global, a bankrupt tv and newspaper conglomerate, showing where the big profits were being made.
There's no question that 'vertical integration' of content and communications is a really bad idea. However, the situation in Canada is better than in many other places.
It's true that the Tories were little help. But the CRTC is a 'quasi-judicial' body, which operates with a surprising amount of independence from the elected government, and which over recent years has shown a surprising amount of intelligence in dealing with the Internet. The CRTC also has the teeth that the FCC lacks in the US. Listen to the transcripts of some of its recent hearings. The big telcos (other than Bell) are very humble before the CRTC.
As for Rogers, I like to say that for a huge, evil corporation, they're not that bad. All ISPs are horrible, as the saying goes - but Rogers is less horrible than most. I'm paying them for 150Mbps service, and getting 200Mbps. Whenever I have a disagreement with their tech support, I invariably discover that they're right and I'm wrong. I've also spoken with various Rogers executives at various times, and always been surprised at how self-aware and forward-looking the company is. Sure, they're squeezing the consumer for every dime - but they're doing it in a smarter way than a lot of other telcos. (Especially those that dominate the US.)
Obviously, Canadians can't be complacent. We should definitely support groups like OpenMedia, and keep up the pressure on both ISPs and the government. All I'm saying is that when listing our complaints, we should also count our blessings. We have reasonably good broadband availability, especially considering our vast geography. And we have numerous ISPs, large and small, competing with each other. If you hate Rogers, you do have alternatives.
Reasonably good broadband availability, PAH! I live 3 km from high-speed and have to pay through the nose for wireless LTE that stutters and stammers through YouTube videos. Bell & Rogers want $80.00 a meter to pull a line down the road ( how much was the cost of that fiber that Google pulled across the Pacific?) If they did this they would get a few hundred more customers, but the low hanging fruit in the city proper is too easy, and they just can't be bothered.
TP actually wrote "A product of the previous Harper government, the Liberal party under now-prime-minister Trudeau voted in favour of Bill C-51. Trudeau did not let his MPs vote their conscience on that vote. This is why I, personally, loathe Trudeau and his Liberals..."
This loathing only makes sense if you loathe even more Harper and his Conservatives, the ones that had a majority government at the time and them that actually create and passed C51.
I'm left to decide... Does Mr Pott loathe *all* Canadian politicians, especially the Harper Conservatives even more than the Liberals? Or is he just another right winger whose thinking is completely confused?
"I'm left to decide... Does Mr Pott loathe *all* Canadian politicians, especially the Harper Conservatives even more than the Liberals? Or is he just another right winger whose thinking is completely confused?"
Or maybe he likes the NDP, who were flatly opposed to C-51.
decoherence: "...maybe he likes the NDP..."
Entirely possible. The formerly-Left NDP swung so far to the Right under Mulcair's lust-for-power that if any right wingers were paying attention, then they could have become NDP'ers without contradiction.
Unlikely....that they were paying attention.
I don't loathe all politicians. I have some level of passionate disagreement with Elizabeth May regarding her stance on fission, but otherwise seem to agree with her on most things. There are some NDP that I agree with some of the time (Cullen, Duncan, a few others). There are some Tories and ex-Tories that I agree with some of the time (Rathgeber, Chong).
In short: no political party represents me very well. (Which my position on the Political Compass explains. I believe strongly in both individual liberty and that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one).
There are times where it is necessary to subsume our personal interests or liberties in order that the common good be served, but - by and large - these times should be kept to the absolutely minimum required. Unfortunately, no ideology survives contact with humanity, and the fact that people are dicks to one another necessitates a certain fluidity of implementation.
Where I clash with most political organizations is that I prefer both the crafting of legislation and the implementation thereof to be rational, logical and backed by as much evidence as possible. Politicians get elected through appeal to emotion and the application of evidence is not frequently beneficial to their long term prospects for employment.
So call me whatever "wing" you want, but don't try to marry me to any of Canada's mainstream political parties. Except maybe the Greens. May and I can debate energy policy over beer and still be friends, I think. She seems like good people.
I saw one CAD sign in the article and that was for a failed project. So, how much do Canucks pay for broadband?
For a rubbish comparison: in the UK I have a 80Mbs-1 down, 20Mbs-1 up (nominal) link for about £35m-1, completely unlimited (I put terabytes down it per month). My home link is a business one and prices vary depending on packages etc for consumers. I also have to pay for a bit of copper in my house ie a POTS line (which isn't used) at £15m-1. My link is on the expensive side because ... reasons. A home link via say PlusNet is rather less.
Bell Aliant FibreOP. Fiber to the Home (FTTH).
150 Mbps ("Gb" 960 Mbps available), [50 Mbps up]. No data cap, truly unlimited, and generally excellent performance (their back end network seems to be very strong, doesn't slow down like the local Cable Co.). We've got four people each using it heavily. It just works. Telephone companies seem to know what they're doing.
Bundled with a fairly lovely telephone service (over the same fiber), but not including any TV service (because their 260 channel offerings are half the number 520 available on satellite). Inexplicable.
CAD $135.45 + 15% tax (hey, free health care) per month.
Some people are able to get (effectively) lower pricing if they accept a 'triple play' bundle including the TV. For 'certain channels' reasons, we can't.
We live in the suburban sprawl, aces, miles from the downtown. Our 'last mile' from the local CO is actually a bit over 4 km. Long distances. On the other hand, the fiber cables were just attached to existing poles nearly at a walking pace. Rolling it out seemed to be no big deal. No excuse to be scared of FTTH, in areas with poles.
Previously we had DSL at a horrific 1.4 Mbps for about $80-$100. Before that, we used several cellular data sticks at 3 Mbps and $100; but capped at 5 GB. So we're happy to have FTTH, even if it's a bit expensive. I'm sure they're making a healthy profit.
Canada telecoms are expensive. Effectively a multiparty monopoly. Population density is a red herring. Most people live where it's crowded.
If you want to see expensive Internet come to Oz...
100Mbps connection is available to the lucky few (where fibre NBN is available). These are usually bundled with data limits (some as low as 100MB). Most of us have to put up with ADSL2 (my connection is lucky to get over 6Mbps).
Mobile Internet - If you get more than 5Gb per month included data you are lucky. Go over the data limit and it is $AUD10 per Gb.
and we are told that we live in the "Lucky Country"...
cmrayer "...FTTC....including copper line rental."
Fiber to the Curb, and then an invoice line item to 'rent' the last few feet of copper cable (from the curb into your house); a short length of cable worth perhaps $10?
It's just funny to 'rent' something that's now so short, and thus so valueless. More historical than logical.
The Canadian telecoms regulator - the CRTC - is stuffed with retired Telco types who no doubt have large share portfolios with their former employers.
As a result Canadians are screwed monthly when their cell and InterNet bills arrive.
Here in VietNam we pay $0.15 (yes, fifteen US cents - at cost) for a replacement SIM card - the originating card costs $10.00 with a $10 credit for airtime. In Canada you are charged CAD$50 for the very same card!
The CRTC is run by career bureaucrats - lawyers, mostly. For instance:
Good point about cellular, though. It's much worse than broadband. I think the two competitive landscapes are very different.