The FCC reportedly stands ready to punish Comcast for its "network management" practices, a decision that may bolster the prospect of CRTC action against Canadian providers who engage in similar traffic shaping.
FCC To Punish Comcast Over Traffic Shaping
July 11, 2008
Share this post
3 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
byMichael Geist

March 2, 2026
Michael Geist
February 23, 2026
Michael Geist
February 9, 2026
Michael Geist
Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act's Private Right of Access
February 2, 2026
Michael Geist
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 255: Grappling with Grok – Heidi Tworek on the Limits of Canadian Law
January 26, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
Nobody Wants This: Senate Rejects Government’s Anti-Privacy Plan for Political Parties By Sending Bill Back to the House With a Sunset Clause
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 258: Jaxson Khan With an Insider Perspective on AI Policy Development in Canada
Time for the Government to Fix Its Political Party Privacy Blunder: Kill Bill C-4’s Disastrous Privacy Rules

I think this is good news for the Net Neutrality movement in Canada. I just hope the CRTC identifies the need for transparency with ISPs and the dangers of using DPI.
Great news!! I wonder if/how many law suits will occur even after they are penalized. Im certainly no expert but shouldn’t the customers who sat and watched their internet throttled on bit torrent etc be entitled to some kind of compensation especially if they were well within their policy agreements?
sanction of Comcast
This might be not so much a ruling on net neutrality, as on the method used to accomplish it. They killed bittorrent connections by forging reset packets from the other end of the communication. That can be interpreted as a man-in-the-middle attack on an ongoing communication, rather than a slow-down or refusal to carry.