And where does this magical switching ability come from, genius?

I’ve never seen anyone actually substantiate this argument.
_______

“It would destroy these vital competitors, leaving virtually all locales with a monopoly or at best a duopoly.”

In Canada, all we have are duopoloies, consisting of colluding telco monopolies and cable monopolies.
_______

“…it’s a ’solution’ to a problem which does not exist.”

Only according to Bell and Rogers.
I don’t know where you live, but in Canada, the need for net neutrality and fair competition was thrust upon the People by the very actions of these providers.

To say the problem doesn’t exist is simply obtuse.
_______

“ISPs are not interested in discriminating against content, nor against particular application or content providers. But because a network is by definition a shared medium, they MUST be able to stop types of behavior which harm the network or hog resources.”

That statement is just riddled with self-conflicting nonsense!
What, exactly, would define the “behaviour” that would supposedly “harm the network or hog resources”, if it doesn’t involve its content, the application that created it, or where it came from?? (It’s not like there’s very much else to an internet transmission.)

Additionally, what earthly purpose would an ISP who’s “not interested in discriminating against content, or particular application” have in employing DPI? I mean, if they’re “not interested” in these things, why would they have any interest in discovering them?!
_______

“…harm the network or hog resources”

The 2 curious phrases that keep getting recycled by the likes of Bell, ad nauseum, used together.
Always without any sort of qualification.

The packets that are being transferred cannot harm anything.
The continual use of the word “harm” is just a feeble “psy-ops” technique used against the consumer.
The only “harm” that a network can experience comes in the form of REAL congestion, which is something none of these providers have been able to show has ever happened.

Same goes for the “resource hog” BS.
The providers all market and sell a service that is supposed to be capable of such high levels of delivery, yet those that use what they paid for, in the very way it was advertised, are called “hogs”?! I call it “false advertising”. To limit the customer’s usage to something less than paid for should be called “breach of contract” as well. To pry into the packets in order to discover what “behaviour” will be limited should be called “unlawful interception” and “invasion of privacy”.
_______

“…they must be able to prevent a user from consuming more costly resources than he or she is paying for.”

Customers pay for what they’re promised.
Any attempt to reverse this statement is foolish, even in the name of furthering propaganda, and only insults the intelligence of the Canadian consumer.
_______

“Instead of regulating ISPs and the Internet, government should encourage competition and prohibit anticompetitive practices.”

First of all, the bill doesn’t propose true “regulation”.
It asks for 2 things:
1) a guarantee of neutrality in data handling by the providers.
(Just transfer the packets according to the original design of the protocol – they don’t need to know anything else about them.)
2) clear definitions of “anti-competitive practices” which are to be prohibited.
_______

“…if users don’t like an ISP’s network management practices, they can simply switch to one they like better.”

Even if we had that scenario, we still need to address the problem of one provider having to peer with another.

If I were to choose a provider because it didn’t use DPI, or throttle BT, what good would that do if other providers were still allowed to open and examine my packets or interfere with them in any way, whenever these packets need to pass through a peering network?

You see, it’s not just a question of “network management methods”, it’s a question as to whether these methods are even necessary when they involve degrading the service someone paid for, or evoking privacy invasion.

It’s also a question of delivering what’s been sold to the consumer.
You can’t sell the people something and then cry “shortage” after you take the money!
Providers can’t have it both ways. They should be made to either, sell ONLY what they’re capable of delivering, for a reduced price, and leave the customers’ data alone, or damned well UPGRADE the network to accommodate what they’re currently ALREADY selling to everyone, and leave the customers’ data alone!

ISPs are not interested in discriminating against content, nor against particular application or content providers. But because a network is by definition a shared medium, they MUST be able to stop types of behavior which harm the network or hog resources. And they must do it BEFORE it develops into “extraordinary congestion” which cripples the network. They also must ensure that the network remains financially sustainable, which does mean that they must be able to prevent a user from consuming more costly resources than he or she is paying for. These resources include Internet backbone bandwidth, “last mile” bandwidth, and wireless spectrum.

For these reasons, this bill is a very bad idea. Instead of regulating ISPs and the Internet, government should encourage competition and prohibit anticompetitive practices. Then, if users don’t like an ISP’s network management practices, they can simply switch to one they like better.

“offer directly to each user service at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over a user’s connection;”

The 2nd part of that statement is just going to be used for evil. Using that I can block anything I want with some fancy back talk.

(a) manage the flow of network traffic in a reasonable manner in order to relieve extraordinary congestion

Totally toothless

Just wanted to make you aware the throttling debate is open again on the CRTC website:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/partvii/eng/2009/8662/p8_200907727.htm

Application to review and vary Decision 2008-108

( decision 2008-108 is the Throttling case: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/dt2008-108.htm )

2009-05-21 – Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) for Consumer Groups, Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), Acanac Inc., Accelerated Connections Inc., Cybersurf Corp., eagle.ca, Execuling Telecom Inc., Managed Network Systems Inc., Skyway West Business Internet Services, Start Communications, TekSavvy Solutions Inc., Vianet Inernet Solutions and Yak Communications Inc. (the Applicants)
Description:
Please find attached an application made pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure and section 62 of the Telecommunications Act by the Applicants, seeking to review and vary Telecom Decision 2008-108, dated 20 November 2008.

To Download the application it is found here:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2009/8662/p8_200907727/1140124.zip

Woot

“The principle is simple, it’s the consumer, not the corporations, who should be deciding what content has value on the internet.”

The principle is simple, but certain “market forces” at play to make it not so simple.

People who vote this bill down will show their colors.

My eyes will be open.