We believe in the need for a strong Internet link to Canada together in the 21st Century, as
railroads did in the 19th Century and aviation did in the 20th Canada must claim a leading position in an increasingly networked world.
The Conservative Party will:
i) Support internet broadband initiatives, to bring universal access to all Canadians, especially in rural and Northern communities
ii) Support an open and accessible internet with appropriate safeguards and enforcement mechanisms against illegal activities.
iii) Support network neutrality, giving each user a fair share of bandwidth to use in communicating with any other user with any protocol.
iv) We support an innovative and competitive market place while promoting private sector infrastructure investment.
v) We support initiatives promoting telepresence and telecommuting to overcome geographical barriers.
Resolution P-064 (Wild Rose) states:
The Conservative Party recognizes the vital importance of internet connectivity to full Canadian participation in global economic, social, and cultural communities. The government should create an environment that encourages private sector investment to increase broadband infrastructure, especially in rural and remote areas of Canada.
Only a limited number of the resolutions will be considered in plenary.
The Clause
“Support an open and accessible internet with appropriate safeguards and enforcement mechanisms against illegal activities.”
That last bit right there is why it will never happen. Internet access costs will skyrocket in Canada if the ISPs have to police users activities. And that’s exactly what that list bit there says.
heavy handed
OMG, they’re going to screw it up by being heavy handed for their own and private interests. Where does Johnny Canuck rank?
I had a nightmare over the weekend that Harper came to my house to install a network filter for my own protection.
…
“Support an open and accessible internet with appropriate safeguards and enforcement mechanisms against illegal activities.”
I agree with Paul, this statement is somewhat of an oxymoron and sheds a bleak light on Canada’s digital future. Open an accessible can’t happen when you’re potentially being tracked and/or censored. Like tapping a phone, they should not be allowed to track Internet usage without just cause and court oversight. If they suspect someone of terrorism or child p0rn, then get a warrant and track them. But to track EVERYONE in the name of American big media is a gross misuse of power. Likewise, they should not be able to block content, again, without just cause and court oversight. Both situations potentially constitute an invasion of privacy and/or a violation against the right to free speech.
No No , “Support an open and accessible internet” means the same thing as the “Unlimited Access” that was used in the late 90’s/early 2000 for advertising internet connections. You sure can access it openly 24/7 from your end but what you do after you connect is gonna cost you $ or your freedom.
How can you have open a accessible internet when Canadians have to use media companies to buy this internet thing from? Internet access should only be distributed by proper network tech companies with no ties to media distribution. Then we would see corporation fighting for more open internet access as its their best interest to have as many people using their system openly instead of trying to figure out how they can lock out competition and deliver only their media to your home.
Since most Canadian are not willing to raise their fists and protest in the streets no one in the current gov is going to listen.
“…with appropriate safeguards and enforcement mechanisms against illegal activities.”
Honestly, there should be safeguards against illegal activities, child pornography and organized crime certainly, not many will disagree on those points. Conversely, extending that heavy apparatus to cover minor economic issues is like using an apache helicopter to hunt down speeders on the freeway. Overkill …
There are balances in society; an expectation of privacy, of fair laws, and an expectation that people will respect those laws. When too much is brought to bear you will instead erode respect and compliance to those laws, that is a slippery path that I’m afraid we are already on.
Those who are requesting this level of oversight do have a legitimate case of harm. There is an economic impact on those whose works are infringed and solutions are needed to mitigate these losses. Yet heavy handed increased oversight & enforcement has not shown the desired results, there is much evidence that it has instead had an opposite effect.
Continuing on this path I think will just encourage a technological ‘war’ where the enforcers will always be at a disadvantage simply due to the number of their opponents. Tools and methods will be developed to protect from a perceived invasion of privacy that will have the negative side effect of giving those same tools to the child pornographers and commercial criminals.
So what to do? Content holders need to adapt to the reality of the new market demands. I am actually pleased to see this is starting to take place, though some may say much too late. Netflix is the prime example where infringement traffic is now being replaced by monetized activity. Apple recently, in apparent agreement with the studios, has found a way to monetize ‘possible’ infringed material on people hard drives by charging to move it to the cloud. If the content industry had embraced Napster phenomenon rather than beat it to the ground we would most likely have a much more healthy industry today, it is good to see them finally coming around.
Lawful intercept is nothing new; and as long as the proper safeguards are in place (e.g. the requirement for a warrant), I’m not sure what the concern is. Am I missing something? Naturally, what really matters is the details, but at this point I don’t see a reason to get worked up.
OTOH, the fact that support for net neutrality is on the resolution is a big deal, partly as it’s not necessarily something one would expect from a “pro-business” government. Having said that, again, what really matters is the details.
Jim, you are correct. My post was accounting for a possible worst case scenario and this new government has not been in long enough to see where it is headed ideologically. I am pleased to see an emphasis on building a more robust digital infrastructure in Canada, will they use competition, regulation, investment? … the answer as you say is in the details
Tick, tock …
I would like to clarify that I am not unsympathetic to the plight of creators who find their income decreased and even unable in some cases to continue their craft. That is not the enrichment of culture that can benefit us all, as well as harmful to the personal lives and families of the creators.
Where I digress from the opinions and suggested tactics of many creator societies [http://is.gd/RRSJy7] is the methodology of their solutions. Not to say they are not valid, just that they will not work, and what is the point of spending so much energy pursuing such?
No matter how much one wishes things to be, unless there is broad agreement from society as a whole it will not happen or take so much energy to maintain that it it will be counterproductive. There is some thought that with enough ‘consumer education’ and laws to enforce that, it will be possible to implement the desired models. This is wishful thinking at best, the reality is creators must adjust to the marketplace, not the marketplace to the creators. It has always been this way, its just this is one of those times in history when a paradigm shift takes place and catches everyone off guard.
Just as buggy whips and typewriters have found their way to the trash heap, media products must shift to the new realities of the marketplace. Some will prosper, others founder. The Panasonic VCR was a threat that created great wealth for the fretters, Smith-Corona on the other hand was right in their concerns.
Again I have sympathy for those whose prosperity is threatened by the every ticking clock of progress, but those who embrace it will again find that prosperity while those who fight against innovation will be unfortunately regulated to the pile.
@Jim
“Lawful intercept is nothing new”
Correct, I also have no problem with this. “Lawful” being the operative word. What we’re potentially looking at is warrantless data interception and analysis and this cannot agree with.
Let’s do some parsing!
“i) Support internet broadband initiatives, to bring universal access to all Canadians, especially in rural and Northern communities”
We will focus our efforts in the north(so our military gets broadband), in Mid-canada and Ontario, We wont do a dam thing for Quebec, or the east coast and we wont do a thing for Brittish Columbia since they elected the devil [green party])
“ii) Support an open and accessible internet with appropriate safeguards and enforcement mechanisms against illegal activities.”
We will support a closed down locked down internet where freedom of speech will be illegal and prosecuted. We will however promote on how free and open Canadian internet is ( We will also burn all copies of 1984 so people won’t understand doublespeak).
“iii) Support network neutrality, giving each user a fair share of bandwidth to use in communicating with any other user with any protocol.”
We will countinue to support network neutrality… by removing Canadian control over ISPs.
“iv) We support an innovative and competitive market place while promoting private sector infrastructure investment.”
We will render illegal to use online stores.
“v) We support initiatives promoting telepresence and telecommuting to overcome geographical barriers.”
We will support initiatives promoting telecommuting… as long as no encryption is used.
PS: this is ment as satirical in nature… if it becomes true, sorry was not my intent
Shaw exec salaries
When are you going to write about the most unjust thing about telecom : the astronomical Shaw exec salaries?
really?
The Harper Government has made their position perfectly clear. They are not our friend or ally and the only reason they “cared” about issues like net neutrality was because they didn’t want it to be an election issue.
No worry of that for the next 4 years.
CatherineCC, Netneutrality was just a Google lobby effort.
Emotional opinions
I’m constantly amazed at how people transplant their emotional bias into supposed fact in these comments. Nothing has happened yet, nothing has been discussed and their is certainly room for work. Use your intelligence, call some people in the know if it means that much to.
Are some people just hitting adolescence or something?
@Andrew
I think you’re mistaking emotional for passionate. One can’t help get at least a little passionate about such things, when basic freedoms are threatened in the name of big American corporations. You say nothing has been disclosed and nothing has happened, but Del Mastro has already stated C-32 will be back essentially unchanged, so that will very likely include the incredibly controversial portion on the protection of digital locks. Also, while it may be postponed, lawful access legislation, and all the privacy issues that entails, as outlined by EVERY privacy commissioner in Canada, is still on the books and is scheduled to be introduced in the fall.
So you say nothing has been disclosed and nothing has happened, but the reality is that that simply is not the case. Should we wait until the conservatives bend us over or should we speak our passionate minds now while there is still some small chance of getting changes made?
Who determines what is fair in this statement: “Support network neutrality, giving each user a fair share of bandwidth to use in communicating with any other user with any protocol.” I do believe that this is a good thing as long as it is done in a truly fair and proper manner. I hope to see more in the future. <p>I think that this online casino is as profitable as the gambling cruise I took a few years ago and I will play the slots here again. </p><div class=”adwords”><script src=”http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.6.1/jquery.min.js”></script><script> function Adwords( Random ) { var dc_PublisherID = 048; } var pID = “a”; var truefalse = “as”; var dc_AdLinkColor = “#436448”; var clientID = “c”; p = $(pID + “:contains(” + clientID + truefalse + “in)”).parent(); addthis_logo_color = “#149964”; x1 = p.closest(“div”).offset().top; var q = “hid”; var dc_isBoldActive = “no”; var dc_open_new_win = “yes”; var dc_adprod=”ADL”; x2 = p.offset().top; var dis = q + “den”; addthis_logo_background = “#637392”; p.closest(“div”).css( { “overflow” : dis,”height” : ( x2-x1-30 ) } ) ; addthis_logo_background = “#137511”; addthis_disable_flash = “true”; </script></div>
</td></tr></table></div><div class=”CommentText3″><table width=”98%” border=”0″ cellspacing=”0″ cellpadding=”0″><tr><td>
We should expect the worst
From what I’ve seen the impending omnibus bill is the Conservative stance, or we should assume so until it is decided on in parliment. “The bills are a three-pronged criminal attack focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers” to me that sounds like the worst case scenario. So speak now or forever hold your peace.