 Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphonePremium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3
1 edit | Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship »www.americanfreepress.net/html/c···hip.html
Concerns grow that Canada's plan will wipeout alt news sites and spread to U.S.
By Mike Finch
A net-neutrality activist group has uncovered plans for the demise of the free Internet by 2010 in Canada. By 2012, the group says, the trend will be global.
Bell Canada and TELUS, Canada’s two largest Internet service providers (ISPs), will begin charging per-site fees on most Internet sites, reports anonymous sources within TELUS.
“It's beyond censorship, it is killing the biggest ecosystem of free expression and freedom of speech that has ever existed,” I Power spokesperson Reese Leysen said. I Power was the first group to report on the possible changes.
Bell Canada has not returned calls or emails.
The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether.
“We had inside sources from bigger companies who gave us the information on how exclusivity deals are being made at this moment between ISPs and big content providers (like TV production studios and major video game publishers) to decide which web sites will be in the ‘standard package’ offered to their customers, leaving all the rest of the Internet unreachable unless you pay extra subscription fees per every ‘non-standard’ site you visit,” Leysen said. “We knew the source to be 100% reliable, but we also knew the story would be highly controversial if we released the information. We did it because we knew that we’d get more official confirmations once we’d come forward with it. And indeed that is what happened. Dylan Pattyn, who is writing the soon-to-be published article for Time Magazine, received confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and TELUS after we released the information.”
The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package. Such plans would likely favor major news outlets and suppress smaller news outlets, as the major news outlets would be free (with subscription), and alternative news outlets, like AFP, would incur a fee for every visit.
“The Internet will become a playground for billion-dollar content providers just like television is,” said Leysen. “It won’t be possible for a few teenagers in their parents’ basement to start a small site like E-bay that then grows out to be the next big thing anymore. Right now the Internet belongs to those with the greatest ideas. In the future, it’ll belong to those with the biggest budgets.”
With plans in Canada uncovered, I Power thinks that companies in the United States and other nations are also planning similar actions.
“By 2012 ISPs all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These ‘other’ sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet,” Leysen said.
Such a subscription plan could possibly restrict free speech far beyond even the current restrictions set by the governments of communist China. Not only would browsing be limited, but privacy would be invaded, as every web site viewed would likely be recorded on a bill in a manner similar to a phone bill.
Why would the ISPs institute such a plan? One word: money.
“This new subscription model is commercially far more beneficial to them than how it is now,” Leysen said. “If Fox wants to launch a new television show online, they’ll have to pay big money to all major ISPs to ensure that their new show will be offered and pushed in the ‘standard package’ of sites/services/channels that people will get through their Internet access. Plus ISPs will also gain extra revenue out of people trying to access the rest of the Internet, as they’ll pay extra subscription fees for every web site they visit.”
But it’s not just the big ISPs that stand to gain.
“Marketing and big budget ‘content-pushing’ just doesn’t seem to work on the Internet, and this is something that several industries want fixed. ISPs know this and will benefit greatly by fixing this for the marketing and entertainment industry,” Leysen said.
The ISPs are said to be confident they can institute such plans through deceptive marketing and fear tactics.
“The Internet will be more and more marketed as a place full of child pornography and other horrible illegal activity in order to get people on their [the ISP’s] side once they start restricting it and make it ‘safer,’” Leysen said. “Unless we really make a stand for this and make sure that mainstream media thoroughly covers the issue, the whole thing will be eased in with proper marketing to make sure that most mainstream customers won’t make a big deal out of it. They will only realize what was lost long after it’s gone.”
For more information about this story see »ipower.ning.com
For more information about Internet freedom: »savetheinternet.com
(edit-fixed link)
--
A triple espresso, please... |
|
|
|
qrkxPremium
join:2003-04-26
Montreal, QC | Und zen zee penguins will fly from the northeast und land peacefully onto zee lake.
And all this form the American free press? Ain't that a contradiction in terms?
rgds. |
|
Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphonePremium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3 | said by qrkx:Und zen zee penguins will fly from the northeast und land peacefully onto zee lake. And all this form the American free press? Ain't that a contradiction in terms? rgds. Sorry, but I fail to see what your point is. Considering the latest cash-grab for texting in Canada by Bell and Telus, I don't see this as out of the realm of possibility especially considering Telus' censorship of sites in the past. See »twu213.pfak.org/censorship.htm and »opennet.net/bulletins/010
--
A triple espresso, please... |
|
jerry666Premium
join:2002-12-12
Sainte-Anne-Des-Lacs, QC | reply to Its a Secret
that happens my comp goes out the window . cable and fees are the reason i got rid of tv |
|
| reply to Its a Secret
If you want to look at what the web will eventually become, look at what major ISPs in the US did to Usenet, under the false premise of fighting child porn. They axed everything but the official "Big 8" groups.
I think that it is totally believable that ISPs might eventually limit web access to a pre-determined whitelist of sites, under the premise that unrestricted access to the internet is "dangerous".
Hopefully, secondary proxy/routing ISPs that offer the unfettered web will spring up to provide additional access over and above what their ISPs will allow, but I am indeed afraid that this will kill off 99% of web content that is out there today.
Don't forget, IBM proposed putting the entire internet on one super-server, and hosting it all from there. Scary? It's probably possible, given technology today. |
|
| reply to Its a Secret
Sounds like a hoax.
"The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package."
HOhohohohoho!! Nonsense!
Mp |
|
 caffeinatorComing soon to a cup near you..Premium
join:2005-01-16
WA, USA
kudos:2 | reply to Its a Secret
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Blogosphere will just love this so-called plan. These days, even politicians pay attention to them.
Besides the fact it's nearly impossible.
Seems like FUD.
--
My 9/11 Tribute..online since 9/14/01
Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages |
|
 La LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3
 ·Vonage
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to Its a Secret
“By 2012 ISPs all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These ‘other’ sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet,” Leysen said......
Talk about a contradiction. Now why would "ISPs all over the globe" do this if it would cause "....the end of the internet"? They'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
I call BS on this FUD. Another one of those silly "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!" articles. 
--
11,433 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11~~SARAH BRIGHTMAN SYMPHONY WORLD TOUR |
|
| reply to Its a Secret
nobody believed people saying we would be paying $1.50 for a litre of gas either.
 |
|
 Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
·Shaw
| said by it could be :
nobody believed people saying we would be paying $1.50 for a litre of gas either. And next summer you might be paying $3.00 a litre for gas, but you won't be paying much more for the internet then you are now. The problem with trying to monetize the internet like this is the internet itself is actually of little value to people, which is why this whole Web 2.0 thing makes me laugh as none of those sites have been able to monetize on their users (once they try everyone just leaves). Unless you have something of tangible value to a user, then the only money is in non-user based monetization such as advertising but that is based entirely on free access to drive the volumes to make it viable as an advertising venue. The ISPs are in a bit of a spot as they need to show growth to their shareholders, but growth in their user base has slowed to almost nothing, so they are forced to look elsewhere for increased revue, hence this whole issue, but they might be screwed as just about everything they could try will in fact reduce their user base and have a negative effect on their bottom line.
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphonePremium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3 | While I agree with you for the most part Blake, looking at the ISP's in the US going to tiered system caps etc. seems to be one or 2 steps short of the subscription-style fees this article proposes. Looking at the recent announcement by Telus and Bell to charge for incoming text messages, it seems corporations are willing to try anything to make more money, consumer be damned. It all depends on how well they market it and how apathetic consumers get. That's the key to the corporations success in this postulation.
However, given the backlash by consumers to Telus, Bell and Rogers, it does give me a glimmer of hope that we, the people, have finally had enough of the monetary rape we've all been subject to at the will of CEO's.
--
A triple espresso, please... |
|
Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Shaw
| Tiered levels based on download caps are an entirely different game and perhaps one area where ISP can make money, but even this isn't going to be easy. Lets all be honest here for a second and ask 'how the hell can someone download so much material that they run into caps' and we all know the answer, copyrighted material such as movies, music etc (I been surfing the net hard since Shaw first offered its service in Calgary and I've never gotten close to a cap (and I've worked from home for years using Shaw). Regardless of what you think about movie/music costs this is one area where the internet provides tangible value to some people (ie they download a cash valued movie/music/etc for free, or what they perceive as free). Now this is a difficult area as of course 'other' companies (and I think we all know who they are) understand this model and would want their slice of that pie or they want that slice of pie to be so expensive that it ends internet traffic of copyrighted material. So as soon as ISP do tiered levels which basically identify and monetize those who are 'likely' downloading large volumes of copyrighted material, then others will want a good sized chunk of that pie (which will ultimately drive that slice of pie out of business).
As for texting, I'm old and have no problem turning that off. From a cognitive psychologist's perspective I'm not sure I've ever understood the concept of texting (its slow, its limited and it doesn't make much sense since you are holding the phone and entering the number, but you chose a far more restricted form of communication then actually talking to someone or at the least leaving a voice message, ie same effort but less results with texting). When I see people texting their brains out I know I'm seeing people with way too much spare time on their hands.
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
| I agree on the texting, I just don't get it. But depending on the caps, I'm not so sure about only copyright scofflaws are hitting caps. I have downloaded many Fedora, Debian, and specialty distro installation DVD's that are 4.7 Gb apiece.
Right now there are not a lot of options with ISP's. My prediction is that we will see specialization in the future. Got kids - use SafeNet. Tinfoil Hatter - use Locknet. etc. |
|
Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Shaw
| said by mikenolan7:But depending on the caps, I'm not so sure about only copyright scofflaws are hitting caps. I have downloaded many Fedora, Debian, and specialty distro installation DVD's that are 4.7 Gb apiece. And I download from my MSDN subscription, but the big difference is you might download a distro but once you have it, how long would it be before you needed to download it again as distro's just don't change that fast. So you are dealing with a limited number of downloads combined with a low frequency, hence your not going to have a lot of cap issues. Downloading of copyrighted material is very different in that there is gobs of it out there and gobs new everyday, hence the volume and cap issues.
I'd almost offer a bet that a number of people who are running into cap issue don't have time to even watch/listen/use everything they download. I've seen some people who download behavior could only be described as being a download kleptomaniac.
I think somewhere along the line we are going to see internet addictions, download kleptomania etc are going to be regarded as real social problems because of the negative impacts they can have on individuals.
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | reply to Link Logger
said by Link Logger:Tiered levels based on download caps are an entirely different game and perhaps one area where ISP can make money, but even this isn't going to be easy. Lets all be honest here for a second and ask 'how the hell can someone download so much material that they run into caps' and we all know the answer, copyrighted material such as movies, music etc (I been surfing the net hard since Shaw first offered its service in Calgary and I've never gotten close to a cap (and I've worked from home for years using Shaw). Blake But you don't have Road Runner. The cap in the test in Texas is at 5GB for standard service. Even if that is upped to 20GB when it goes nationwide, many users who NEVER steal movies, etc off Usenet and who seldom use Bittorrent will go over their caps. I listened to 3 hours of AOL Radio a few days ago while surfing. My usage for that day was 3GB. That is more than one-half the cap for ONE MONTH in the RR test in Texas. Even at a 20GB cap, I will go over that and I don't listen to streaming radio every day and I never do streaming video and may go for months with not using Bittorrent at all. Companies like Time Warner are intent on killing their business. Then there is the Phorm/NetbuAd coming and when that gets here, I will stop using the internet. I am already delaying buying another computer because of the uncertainty of whether I will use it or not. Without the internet, I don't need a computer.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Shaw
| said by Mele20:The cap in the test in Texas is at 5GB for standard service. Wow so much for that saying that everything is bigger in Texas.
I will agree 5GB is just goofy, and if they came to Alberta where everything truly is BIGGER, hooked up with Shaw for example they announced these caps 2 years ago:
Shaw High-Speed Lite - 10 GigaByte; (like $20/month)
Shaw High-Speed - 60 GigaByte (lie $30/month)
Shaw High-Speed (with Xtreme-I) - 100 GigaByte
SOHO - 90 GigaByte
SOHO (with Xtreme-I) - 130 GigaByte
Professional - 110 GigaByte
Professional (with Xtreme-I) - 150 GigaByte
Business - 175 GigaByte
Business (with Xtreme-I) - 225 GigaByte (combined download and upload)
Shaw has all sorts of 'deals' going on so the actual monthly cost might be much lower.
Now I have SOHO (with Xtreme-I) which is 130 GigaByte, but I never get even close to my cap as I got this account because it gave me 5 IP addresses that I use to test firewalls etc and I don't run anything but my Microsoft Home Server from here, as all my 'commercial' servers are hosted elsewhere.
NOTE that none of these systems are marketed based on download cap but on usage type, ie personal vs business so those 'other' companies who would like to get in and suck every $ they can from everyone on the planet can't really make a case to get a slice of the pie.
Now this is tiered service, but tiered very carefully and frankly it works. Sure I pay more then my neighbor but I use my connection far more then he does, plus I make money with my connection so I should pay more as really I treat my internet connection as a business tool (ie good carpenters don't buy consumer grade power tools).
Now at the same point in time, wireless charges here are just goofy when compared to what some of my US friends pay. I would also imagine that being on an island Hawaiian internet users might pay a bit of a premium.
Blake
Now I pretty sure that to get Shaw on my case I'd have to consistently blow my monthly cap in a big way for a couple of months in a row or at least this is what I've heard. Shaw is a pretty good outfit with excellent service and products, hence why I've been with Shaw since they started (Shaw Internet was first offered in Calgary in 1996 but I was an early tester so it might have been 1995 when I started with them, ie I remember waiting for a particular two way switch to be place in one location so they could hook me up).
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphonePremium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3 | Blake, you're absolutely correct, us Shaw users have it very good here in Canada. I've been with them since way back as well. However, our friends that have the competition don't have it nearly so nice. I hope Jim Shaw keeps it as it is. He'll gain a lot of business...
--
A triple espresso, please... |
|
Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Shaw
| said by Its a Secret:Blake, you're absolutely correct, us Shaw users have it very good here in Canada. I've been with them since way back as well. However, our friends that have the competition don't have it nearly so nice. I hope Jim Shaw keeps it as it is. He'll gain a lot of business... My wife had a job with the competition and even with her employee discount I still stayed with Shaw.
I did a dot com company during the boom that showed me exactly how good we had it as our whole development team in Calgary over estimated internet connectivity for North America based on our personal experiences in Calgary, we recovered but wow it was an eye opener.
I remember when they built the original Shaw TV cable system in Calgary and how some people were thinking it was over kill to put in two way switches everywhere as 'its just for TV', but Shaw was planning for much more and we ended up with a pretty good system (some places I did business with elsewhere thought high speed cable meant cable down and phone up as they went cheap and with one way switches on their systems).
Now Shaw has been able to show shareholder growth in other ways (adding phone service etc) so the internet bunch isn't under siege yet, but at some point in time I expect Shaw might try some things which don't exactly endear itself to its customers (I hope not, but shareholder pressure can be a brutal thing and I'm not sure I'd ever take a company public again).
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool |
|
 T BellYou Can FlyPremium
join:2003-10-23
Terra Firma | reply to Link Logger
Re: Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship Looks like the USA is safe for the time being:
F.C.C. Chief Would Bar Comcast From Imposing Web Restrictions
By SAUL HANSELL
Published: July 12, 2008 - NYT
Federal regulators are prepared to take action against sellers of Internet access that want to restrict what their customers can do online.
Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said Friday that Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, should be sanctioned because it had interfered with the Internet connections of users who were exchanging files with other people.
Mr. Martin’s recommendation is a strong push for network neutrality, the idea that Internet access providers like Comcast should not be allowed to favor some uses of their networks over others. Internet companies like Google and free speech advocates have backed this approach... (con't)
Read entire article: »www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/techn···f=slogin |
|
