Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Businesses The Internet

Justin Trudeau Is 'Very Concerned' With FCC's Plan to Roll Back Net Neutrality (vice.com) 244

Justin Ling, reporting for Motherboard: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says President Donald Trump's plan to roll back net neutrality protections for the internet "does not make sense" and that he'll be looking into what he can do to defend net neutrality for the whole internet. "I am very concerned about the attacks on net neutrality," Trudeau said in Toronto, in response to a question from Motherboard about Trump's plans. "Net neutrality is something that is essential for small businesses, for consumers, and it is essential to keep the freedom associated with the internet alive." Motherboard asked specifically what Trudeau planned to do in response to the plan put forward on Tuesday by the Federal Communications Commission, which could pave the way for tiered internet service and pay-for-play premium access to internet consumers. "We need to continue to defend net neutrality," Trudeau added. "And I will."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Justin Trudeau Is 'Very Concerned' With FCC's Plan to Roll Back Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • Justin Trudeau should also worry about the general breakdown of the U.S. government in many other areas.
    • by penandpaper ( 2463226 ) on Thursday November 23, 2017 @01:35PM (#55611459) Journal

      Why? Canada is doing a fine job of undermining the principles of freedom and liberty.
      https://globalnews.ca/news/387... [globalnews.ca]
      https://globalnews.ca/news/387... [globalnews.ca]

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You do know that WLU doesn't represent Canada in any way, right? Kind of hard for Canada to undermine the principles of freedom and liberty when it's the administration of a university that's being idiots. It's not like they're lawmakers.

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          WLU absolutely represents Canada, it along with UWO, UT, Waterloo, and so on train the next generation of leaders and thinkers. They're the "top tier" universities. The stuff that the parent poster listed is rife in Canadian universities, the only places where it's being pushed back are in the universities with very limited soft-science programs.

          I'll remind you that it was the Liberal Party of Canada(Trudeau's) under Jean Chretien who first implemented the idea of digital spying without a warrant. The fo

      • by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Thursday November 23, 2017 @02:00PM (#55611561)

        Neither of those have anything to do with the federal government.

        What was your point again?

        • That happened because of the law passed by Canada and over zealous university policy in response to that law. As much as it is the government it is cultural to disregard fundamental principles that made our nations what they are today. The point is that Trudeau should be more concerned about Canada and their problems then be concerned about the technicalities of which US bureaucracy will regulate US businesses that have no bearing on Canadian business or citizenry.

          • When was the law passed?
            • June 19, 2017
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

              • by dskoll ( 99328 )

                How does that law apply to the WLU situation again? Connect the dots for us...

                • How would you like me to hold your hand? What are you having difficult? Help me help you.

                  • by dskoll ( 99328 )

                    Show me exactly how any provision in C-16 applies to the situation in WLU. Actually provide evidence. Not sarcastic ducking of the issue.

                    • Why don't you quote what you think my position is in this thread so that we can be on the same page instead of continuing your obtuse trolling? Here is a hint: it's the 2nd post.

                • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 )

                  It doesn't. UWL Prof had a discussion in class about the situation with UoT Prof Jordan Peterson where special snowflakes wanted to force him to use their chosen pronouns. An equally special snowflake complained to UWL about that talk, saying it made them feel uncomfortable.

                  Neither of these instances is illegal as far as C16 goes, because there is no discrimination.

          • As a Canadian, I'd like to know exactly what law you're talking about.

            Ontario has passed some laws linked to human rights complaints, basically saying that if you're persistently being a dick by misgendering someone (for instance) that might be grounds for a complaint and sitting through a tribunal (as I recall), but there's certainly no FEDERAL law that's been passed. Is that the one you're talking about? The one that Jordan Peterson incorrectly claims can land him in jail?

            • by penandpaper ( 2463226 ) on Thursday November 23, 2017 @03:52PM (#55612203) Journal

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

              incorrectly claims can land him in jail?

              I believe one of the consequences could be a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine then you could be jailed: Is the contention Peterson made. Is that true?

              If that is true then it is semantics of what you are jailed for; not paying the fine as opposed to the reason for that fine and why that fine was not paid. Yes, technically you will not be jailed for that but you can be if you refuse to pay the fine over principle as Peterson has said.

              Is compelled speech acceptable in a society that values free speech?

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by dskoll ( 99328 )

                Peterson is a liar. Here is the text of the bill (PDF): www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C-16_1/C-16_1.PDF [parl.gc.ca].

                Show me anything in that bill relating to compelled speech or pronoun usage.

              • Refusing the order of a court at any time for any reason means possible jail time, and that's a matter completely separate from what gets him into the court. It's a two-step decision, see: the decision to break the law that lands him in the court, and the decision to break the law again to refuse to comply with whatever the court deems necessary. It's like saying that parking tickets can land you in jail. Perhaps that's true if you go out of your way not to pay them and then defy a court order, but there's

                • I agree. I think that is why the point of compelled speech is the important part because as far as speech is concerned it is a different animal all together. I have to say certain things to be lawful. It's a matter of how far you are willing to legislate individual interactions and force language usage in those interactions. Personally, I am glad the US has the 1st amendment and multiple court rulings to ensure that compelled speech can never be lawful.

                  If you break the law with intent to defy a court for protest purposes, that's your own thing, and you can't pin that on the law as written.

                  Civil disobedience comes in many forms.

            • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm@icebalm . c om> on Thursday November 23, 2017 @04:51PM (#55612501)

              Also as a Canadian, the problem with these "human rights" laws is that they don't get tried in a court, they get heard by a board. I have very real concerns about it, and I can see someone who hasn't taken the law seriously twisting some of these to actually land someone in jail.

              The problem is this: Peterson doesn't use someones preferred pronoun, a "Human Rights Board" sides with the special snowflake and fines Peterson. Peterson refuses to pay the fine. Then what? The ultimate consequence is he goes to jail.

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            However it provides the Canadian Prime Minister are very effective distraction and quite simply an easy vote catcher, see I am way better than that Orange Orangutan selling out his fellow citizens to the corporate overlords. Seriously, why would you expect any politician to pass that up, they will be doing it all over the globe, "see I am not Trump, see we are not the corrupt US government, see we protect the digital speech of people, vote for me". US politicians in turn will be able to whine and moan and d

            • Does anybody else find it fucking hilarious when the left claims "But but but Trump is corrupt!" while Shillary was allowed to literally buy the DNC [politico.com] which in turn allowed her to buy the superdelegates [observer.com] which made the democratic primary about as fair as a game of three card monty run by a street hustler in a NYC back alley?

              Say what you want but at least people in the Rep primaries had a CHOICE and chose to vote for Trump, we now know that 100% of the people could have voted for Bernie and he still would hav

              • by Altrag ( 195300 )

                Not really. A large portion of the left are aware that Hillary was corrupt too.

                The difference is that Hillary didn't get elected. Her corruption means jack squat all at this point.

        • If Trudeau sees fit to comment things in US (not part of jurisdiction of Canadian goverment), he should also be able to comment things closer to home. Maybe he should even pay more attention to things in Canada.

          And, as a side note, those thing are closely related to Canadaâ(TM)s goverment because they are related to C16.

          • by Altrag ( 195300 )

            He does. Frequently. That's his damned job. The fact that American news sources don't report on Canadian goings on doesn't imply nothing goes on in Canada.

            Also, this is very related to Canada as we rely fairly heavily on US-based internet services. And its important for Canadians to know that we don't (currently) have any intention of following along in the US' foot steps on this issue, thus avoiding at least some level of uncertainty that may have cropped up should speculators start wondering about the

      • "During the meeting, which Shepherd secretly recorded and provided to Global News, she was reprimanded for showing students a video of University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who refuses to use pronouns other than “he” or “she” for transgender individuals.

        The university said showing the clip of Peterson, without denouncing it, created a toxic atmosphere for students. The meeting left Shepherd in tears."

        That is not really free speech...
        • Teachers that cry in school should be removed. My Grade 12 math teacher couldn't help students and would cry when the student got upset and frustrated with her. We all went to another teacher for help after that.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        So a university does something which is seen as limiting free speech, publicly apologizes for it and commits to better upholding free speech, and overall you see this as a step in the wrong direction?
    • Justin Trudeau should also worry about the general breakdown of the U.S. government in many other areas.

      True, but the US is a very large market in the shared resource of the Internet. The fall of net neutrality will negatively affect the quality of the Internet for everyone.

      • True, but the US is a very large market in the shared resource of the Internet. The fall of net neutrality will negatively affect the quality of the Internet for everyone.

        How?

        Seriously, how does an ISP, like Verizon or Comcast, throttling down certain service providers and offering higher data rates to paying service provider for their own customers impact a single Canadian internet user? Is all of Canada leeching off ISP accounts from Verizon, Comcast in the US? No, of course not, so I ask again, how do US regulations that impact US ISPs exclusively become the concern of foreign leaders?

        A parallel argument would be if the President of Mexico was to declare that Canadian pro

        • by Altrag ( 195300 )

          Because some of "their own customers" happen to be websites that Canadians use. If those websites get throttled, it affects everyone that uses them, globally.

          Most of the major websites of course have Canadian CDNs, if not full servers being hosted in Canada and certainly those sites won't suffer. But of course those sites being the "major" ones aren't going to be the ones that face the worst impact of this decision.

          And that's before we start talking about the possibility of say, geolocked upselling. Want

  • Less than a week ago, the overwhelming sentiment was that media mogul Barry Diller's opinion [slashdot.org] carried no weight because he couldn't possibly understand the real issues at play and had a vested interest to boot.

    It'll be interesting to see how far the pendulum swings the other way for the opinion of Justin Trudeau, a politician and champion of centralized governmental control.

    I'll go out on a limb and predict overwhelming support for Trudeau, regardless of his qualifications to speak on the subject and regardl

  • Effect on Canada (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lazarus ( 2879 ) on Thursday November 23, 2017 @02:08PM (#55611601) Homepage Journal

    What happens when a Canadian citizen, using a Canadian ISP streams a video from a service that is shaped by a US network because the infrastructure is in a data center connected to a US telco? Or if the network connection goes through a network that has not been paid off by the service? I'm assuming that if you don't pay (some indie service doesn't pay AT&T or Verizon or whatever) then that service gets throttled no matter the endpoint.

    This overall move will probably tend to benefit Canada as more startups will probably locate in Canada (where the corporate tax rate is already at ~12.5%) and where there is at least a hope in hell of delivering their content to users without shaping.

    I'm not sure how this will play out exactly, but it won't be good for US innovation.

  • i agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Thursday November 23, 2017 @02:12PM (#55611629)
    the government should enforce net neutrality to prevent corporate pirates, predators and vultures from dominating it just because they have the most money and power and influence over the infrastructure,
  • Trudeau may simply be saying this because he likes to project an image of being technically savvy, such as when he staged [jjmccullough.com] an "explanation" of quantum computing a while back.

    He is also not averse to completely reversing promises [theglobeandmail.com] that he later finds to be inconvenient.

    Take whatever our pretty-boy Prime Minister says with a grain of salt.

    • I don't doubt that he means it, and he probably even understands it, I'm just unclear as to what he proposes to DO about it. The CRTC has it in hand, and they've been viciously quashing anything that even remotely resembles zero-rating, as they mention in the article.

      Though I suppose knowing the PM has this position somewhat bolsters the CRTC's actions, so they don't have to worry about any sort of governmental backlash.

      Now all they have to do is find some way to break the oligopoly that Canadian telcos hav

      • We may have Net Neutrality, but that doesn't mean providers aren't completely screwing us. :P

        I couldn't agree more.

  • What's the chance that companies might move their hosting up north?
  • by kenh ( 9056 )

    The leader of Canada, a nation with a population approaching that of California (36m Canadians vs 39m Californians) thinks that:

    US domestic policy regarding internet neutrality impacts the rest of the world

    As leader of a smallish nation believes he can somehow prevent 'the horror' of Trump administration rolling back net neutrality regulations.

    How does the ability of an ISP to charge a service provider a fee for premium data rates to their US customers/users/visitors impact on a Canadian consumer?

  • Allow me to paraphrase Ferris Bueller. "I'm not Canadian. I don't plan on being Canadian. So, who cares if they're socialists or not? They could be fascist anarchists for all I care. It still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car."

    This is the same feeling that pro-gun people have when anti-gun types bloviate about Canadian or Australian gun laws. They don't care what goes on in other countries. They really don't. Point being, that the supremely unqualified Trudeau can have net neutrality a

My computer can beat up your computer. - Karl Lehenbauer

Working...