p2pnet - rss feed: Charlie Angus Net Neutrality bill
p2pnet news special | P2P:- “You are citizens of a digital realm and you have rights.”
That was NDP digital culture spokesman Charlie Angus at yesterday’s Ottawa Net Neutrality rally.
With that in mind, today he introduced a bill to keep the Net free from ISP interference.
“We need to protect the internet from being hijacked by vested interests,” declared Phillipa Lawson, Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic director.
“If market forces could solve this problem we wouldn’t be here today.”
Net neutrality is made up of competition, innovation and consumer rights, said TekSavvy CEO Rocky Gaudrault. And they’re ‘Not for sale’.
Angus’ private member’s amendment to the Telecommunications Act prohibits network operators from engaging in network management practices which favour, degrade or prioritise any content, application service transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership or destination, subject to certain exceptions.
It also prohibits network operators from preventing anyone from attaching a device to their network and makes it mandatory for network operators to make information about user online access available to the user.
Here’s the text >>>
1. Telecommunications Act is amended by adding the following after section 36:
36.1 (1) Network operators shall not engage in network management practices that favour degrade or prioritise any content, application or service is transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership or destination.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as limiting or restricting the right of a network operator to:
(a) Manage the flow of network traffic in a reasonable manner in order to relieve congestion;
(b) Provide a reasonable security protection for a user’s computer or the network;
(c) Give priority to emergency communications;
(d) Offer directly to each user service at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over at the user’s connection;
(e) Offer directly to each user consumer protection services, including parental controls for indecency or unwanted content, software for the prevention of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, or other similar capabilities, provided that the user is given clear and accurate advance notice of their ability to refuse was subsequently disable each consumer protection service;
(f) Handle breaches of the terms of service, provided the terms of service are not inconsistent with subsection (1); and
(g) Prevent any violation of federal or provincial law.
(3) Network operators shall not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching any device to their network, provided the device does not physically damage the network or substantially degrade the use of the network by other subscribers.
(4) Network operators shall make available to each user information about the users access to the Internet, including the speed, limitations, and network management practices of the user’s broadband service at any given time.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “network operator” means any person who operates or provides access to telecommunications services.
Click here for p2pnet’s detailed digest of events, and click here for xsicdn’s photo-montage of the rally (thanks, Marc) , from which I clipped the pic on the right.
And stay tuned.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
.
.Stumble It!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Sorry no good they’ll cop out blocking/degrading any traffic they don’t want as “managing” just like comcasts statements. They could even use (3) to dissalow computers running traffic hungry apps as they “substantially degrade the use of the network by other subscribers.”
I’d also be interested how/if VOIP will be affected as the anti-neutrality side claims these apps need proiretized packets for best usage
May 30th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Too many wiggle words, not enough punch.
You can bet they’ll argue that blocking P2P traffic is done in accordance with clause 2a.
The bill practically gives the ISPs permission to screw with us.