Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship - THE GB'S WET DREAM COME TRUE?

by What-A-Coincidence 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • What-A-Coincidence
    What-A-Coincidence

    Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship

    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 http://ipower.ning.com

    For more information about Internet freedom: savetheinternet.com

  • sass_my_frass
    sass_my_frass

    I don't get it. It's the cheapest ISP that wins. You could set up your own and surf wherever you want for free; unless you decide to surf on the 'pay-per-view' multi-million-dollar sites, which you wouldn't, because they're not free.

  • What-A-Coincidence
    What-A-Coincidence

    needs smore

  • avengers
    avengers
    The ISPs are said to be confident they can institute such plans through deceptive marketing and fear tactics.

    Nice way to get things done!

    If deceptive marketing and fear tactics are gonna be the tools of the future you can be sure it won't work.

    Andy

  • nameless_one
    nameless_one

    Agreed with sass_my_frass, as written this makes little sense. Also, a small investment of time Googling reveals that this verbatim article is all over the place but with nothing to back it up except itself. In other words, the only "official confirmation" is from the original source itself, round and round; gee where have we seen that tactic before.

    As well, it seems that "Dylan Pattyn, who is writing the soon-to-be published article for Time Magazine" is actually a guy who is affiliated with the original source and is planning to submit a freelance, unsolicited article to Time Magazine -- not exactly what's implied by the article, which makes it sound like he's a neutral Time columnist writing an expose.

    I'm not discounting the larger and very real issues of Net neutrality, but come on folks, it's a good thing to vet sources and information.

    My guess is that this is an overblown conspiratorial reaction to Canadian providers introducing per-visit charges FROM CELL PHONES. Which is true, but a big stretch from what these people are implying.

    Show me one "official" source that doesn't loop back to the "original" source and I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I don't buy it.

  • MissingLink
    MissingLink

    Is it my turn to make up a conspiracy theory yet?

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    We're not going to see full-scale net "censorship" as indicated in the so called article above. The real net neutrality issue is about service providers trying to figure out how to provide an acceptable internet experience when P2P and streaming video is starting to choke the web. When everyone down your street starts downloading movies or tv shows to their [entertainment box] and you're just trying to read jwd, it is quite possible for you to have the site load up very slowly. This is what the ISP's are fretting about. The uproar about Comcast filtering(blocking) P2P traffic a few months ago is a perfect example of this. P2P traffic consumes by far the majority of all internet bandwidth. The capacity of the networks are not keeping up with the demand.

    Sorry to say, but the "article" is simply FUD. My company serves as a major ISP(cellular) and nothing of that sort is remotely true.

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    I just wanted to mention one other thing - If ANYTHING were to happen in the form of "net-neutrality," it would likely be some type of metered access. Many of us have now what are called "unlimited" plans. They're really not unlimited in the true sense of the word, but rather, your ISP will probably cap your use once you hit a certain gigabyte ceiling. You might be allowed 10GB's per month before your ISP limits your download speeds or shuts you down. My company does it, so does the rest. It's especially important to cap insane users over a wireless network. Wireless is a more precious resource and is way more limited than a hardwired connection through either DSL, cable, or fiber. But getting back to metered access - what I mean is that some ISP's may begin charging their customers tiered prices for certain amounts of bandwidth usage. For example:

    Less than 1GB downloaded - $20

    1GB-5GB downloaded - $30

    5GB-10GB downloaded - $40

    etc

    etc

    This is exactly what we may see in the coming future. And it is all due to P2P sharing and streaming video services. We will not see ordinary sites being blocked. All those millions of websites(besides the couple hundred mentioned in the FUD article) would become instantly useless. Do you really think the world in general would allow such a thing to happen?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit