Wednesday, February 25, 2009
In support of Net Neutrality in Canada
I read a story today on hearings that the CRTC is going to hold over the question of Net Neutrality. It was about time the question came to Canada. Being a concerned and active citizen and all, I had to voice my precious opinion. Here is what I wrote them, hopefully someone read it:
To whom it may concern
I am writing you today in support of the concept of Net Neutrality, or the idea that ISPs and other telecom service providers should not discriminate Internet traffic based on its type.
I read today a story on the CBC about the fact that the CRTC was seeking comments on the question, but only until Monday the 13 of February: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/24/tech-net-neutrality.html. I was disappointed to learn this, as I would have like to voice my opinion on the question. I was not however aware of the existing of these proceedings.
Still, I want to quickly voice my opinion in favor of the support of Net Neutrality. It is my deep conviction that telecom companies should not be allowed to discriminate Internet traffic based on its type, as long as the paying client is operating within the limits of the contract that he has with the telecom company. Furthermore, I believe that telecom companies should do greater effort at being transparent and communicating with clients any operation they perform on our traffic.
I believe that if a client signs-up for a service that advertises a certain download and upload transmission speed, with a certain bandwidth limit, then this transmission speed should be fully honored as long as the user is within the bandwidth usage limit he or she has, regardless of the type of traffic the client generates. It is preposterous for telecom companies to operate otherwise. Deep packet inspection (DPI) techniques are parallel to telecom companies listening to people's phone conversations and unilaterally deciding that gossip talk between young teenagers is wasted telecom resources and should thus be terminated or reduced in quality. Such a behavior will be totally unacceptable, and the same principles should apply to Internet traffic. Unfortunately, the public is not aware of these behaviors and thus there is no public outcry. It is the role of the CRTC to protect us, Canadian citizens, from the unfair practices of telecom companies which are supposed, by law, to provide a reliable telecom service which is a basic necessity for the functioning and advance of modern knowledge based economies, such as Canada is striving to become.
Thank you for your attention.
To whom it may concern
I am writing you today in support of the concept of Net Neutrality, or the idea that ISPs and other telecom service providers should not discriminate Internet traffic based on its type.
I read today a story on the CBC about the fact that the CRTC was seeking comments on the question, but only until Monday the 13 of February: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/24/tech-net-neutrality.html. I was disappointed to learn this, as I would have like to voice my opinion on the question. I was not however aware of the existing of these proceedings.
Still, I want to quickly voice my opinion in favor of the support of Net Neutrality. It is my deep conviction that telecom companies should not be allowed to discriminate Internet traffic based on its type, as long as the paying client is operating within the limits of the contract that he has with the telecom company. Furthermore, I believe that telecom companies should do greater effort at being transparent and communicating with clients any operation they perform on our traffic.
I believe that if a client signs-up for a service that advertises a certain download and upload transmission speed, with a certain bandwidth limit, then this transmission speed should be fully honored as long as the user is within the bandwidth usage limit he or she has, regardless of the type of traffic the client generates. It is preposterous for telecom companies to operate otherwise. Deep packet inspection (DPI) techniques are parallel to telecom companies listening to people's phone conversations and unilaterally deciding that gossip talk between young teenagers is wasted telecom resources and should thus be terminated or reduced in quality. Such a behavior will be totally unacceptable, and the same principles should apply to Internet traffic. Unfortunately, the public is not aware of these behaviors and thus there is no public outcry. It is the role of the CRTC to protect us, Canadian citizens, from the unfair practices of telecom companies which are supposed, by law, to provide a reliable telecom service which is a basic necessity for the functioning and advance of modern knowledge based economies, such as Canada is striving to become.
Thank you for your attention.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Turcot should definitelly die.
Two weeks ago I read a cover story on the Turcot Interchange by the Montreal Mirror. Obviously, this would be a non-event had I not had some beef with the way the Mirror covered the story. So I decided to write back and tell them how I feel about their article.
Here is a link to the original story, and here is a link to my reply.
The first issue after the Turcot story did not feature my letter, but instead had a letter from someone who agreed with the Mirror's view. When I saw that, my reaction was to loose all faith in the so-called "independent" media.
Then, last week end, sitting inside a steaming hot Dieu du Ciel bar, I just reached for a copy of the Mirror sitting in the racks near the door, you know, just in case they had decided to print my letter after all.
And little do you know, they had indeed printed it. So I guess my opinion of independent (without quotes this time) media improved immediately.
The cover photo of the Turcot Interchange in the Mirror was kind of nice, that's what caught my attention in the first place.
And here is my reply:
Here is a link to the original story, and here is a link to my reply.
The first issue after the Turcot story did not feature my letter, but instead had a letter from someone who agreed with the Mirror's view. When I saw that, my reaction was to loose all faith in the so-called "independent" media.
Then, last week end, sitting inside a steaming hot Dieu du Ciel bar, I just reached for a copy of the Mirror sitting in the racks near the door, you know, just in case they had decided to print my letter after all.
And little do you know, they had indeed printed it. So I guess my opinion of independent (without quotes this time) media improved immediately.
The cover photo of the Turcot Interchange in the Mirror was kind of nice, that's what caught my attention in the first place.
And here is my reply:
