Have you even tried to follow any of the hearings?
Do you not know why we’re having them?

We only have monopolies providing internet service. They’ve shown us they intend to control everything, and keep taking our money, while giving us little in return for it, and would rather throttle us than build up network capacity. If we had true competition, where we had a choice to switch providers, this probably wouldn’t be happening.

The CRTC is, sadly, the only thing we’ve got between us and the providers that could be called a regulator, and these hearings – concerning how Canadian ISPs are handling their end of the Internet equation – may be our only chance to stop the “fascism” you’re talking about from happening.

Without some kind of “regulation” or intervention, you can’t have “fair” when you’re dealing with a monopoly. These providers have proven that. They’ve lied to everyone and continue to thumb their noses at their own customers, and we have no other way to deal with that. That is why we DO need these hearings.

You need to read some of what has already been said in these proceedings and understand this more.

I say bring on full fair Internet competition and get rid of any government regulation over the content and/or speed of Internet access! We don’t need to beg nor plead nor continually explain our position to the CRTC and other governing bodies; I just want to be able to connect to the Internet without government censorship, big business trying to control content and I don’t want to be throttled–period!

What’s wrong with that?

You DO know that these hearings are due to an action initiated by a group of PROVIDERS, don’t you?

I guess “8″ followed by a “)” is not a good idea here, huh?

Don’t be fooled by the name of our regulator. The CRTC is, quite simply, all we’ve got right now, and it will probably change its name in the future to reflect all communications. These particular hearings are about internet traffic management and net neutrality, and have nothing to do with “broadcasting”.

Yes, DPI is a major topic in these hearings. For the purpose of these hearings (and probably to educate the CRTC and bring them up to speed), the various levels of packet inspection – DPI, MPI and LPI – are all being discussed for what they really are, and what they each can do, and what is warranted. Because DPI has far-reaching implications and possible conflicts with some of our laws, it may find itself outlawed.

Also on the roster (and you’re especially gonna love these)…
1) traffic management versus better infrastructure.
2) are providers misleading the public about P2P and bittorrent usage?
3) do “up to” speeds constitute false advertising and unfair practice?
4) the impact of certain proposed “regulations” on pricing.
5) defining a “free” or “neutral” internet.
6) the effects of a neutral internet (or lack of) on innovation, competition, etc.
7) Bell Canada’s refusal to peer with anyone.
Does Bell have the right to throttle their 3rd-party, competing ISPs?
… there’s much more.

So, before you go off on some misguided, “See! I told all you greedy bastards!” cock dance, come to the realization right now that you need to get the facts on what’s happening over here… before you completely get egg all over your face.

I told you a few pages back about the whole thing being taken up with the Regulator, as we’re being raped by monopolists and haven’t got any other avenue of recourse. If anything, much of what we’ve all been saying for some time is coming into play in these hearings, and providers may find themselves in a different world when this is over, and wishing they had been more upfront with the rest of us.

Not-withstanding that there is absolutely no aspect of the Internet that could currently be considered a broadcast medium except for P2P.
Is this an admission by the commission (Canadian Government) that they consider Free to Air and Cable companies commercial futures to be limited ?

If it is; it is rather an insightful one IMHO.

There is some highly relevent new technology being revealed at the hearing and I look forward to seeiong how the commission will understand and rule on the application before it.

The question would seem to come down to – Is DPI warranted?

And…

Under what circumstances is DPI warranted?

My answer is that there are many differing levels of DPI.
At the most basic is Traffic type identification.

If the commission rules that DPI is warranted to protect the economic interests of the providers (big or small ISP’s makes no difference) then that decision will impact how Governments around the world view the issue.

I guess this is the result of P2P’ers not realising that their personal video/music library compilation does in fact impact on the ability of other Internet users.

The ignorance and greed of a few will result in the regulation of us all.

The ISP’s ? They won’t care, they will be able to charge higher fees for the P2P traffic.
The content companies? They wont care – they will finally be able to be paid for the content by taxing the ISP’s higher fees.

The users?

Well, the users will be disenfranchised to the extent that an additional taxation impost will eventuate from DPI which will infact have the result of traffic slowing and congestion flattening.

In other words, we are all about to loose the “free internet” that we have become accustomed too over the last 25 years, mainly because a few demand high speed unthrottled downloads to add to their private movie collections.

Greed works both ways as Canadians and then eventually other countries internet users will discover.