Downloaders face personal legal warnings as US steps up copyright protections

Downloaders face personal legal warnings as US steps up copyright protections — RT USA.

 RT USA

March 27, 2013 

A screenshot from bittorrent.com

Share on Tumblr

Tags

Information Technology, Internet, Law, Piracy, Politics, USA

As new download detection and copyright protection systems are phased into effect stateside, suspected violators have begun to receive warnings of “serious legal and other consequences” from media companies like NBC Universal.

In one instance, a user of the popular file sharing system BitTorrent was dispatched a notice from the media giant for allegedly downloading a television show.

According to TorrentFreak, NBC Universal sent the threatening notice to a user accessing the web through an Internet provider that is currently not participating in the ‘six strike’ system that detects and punishes Internet customers of several American providers who download illegally. The notice was similar to what copyright violators connected to the web using ‘six strike’ ISPs have begun to receive – and the language used in the notice is markedly more aggressive.

In addition to the threat of criminal prosecution, the notice sent to the downloader included the potential termination of their Internet service account.

“Copyright infringement also violates your Internet Service Provider’s terms of service and could lead to limitation or suspension of your Internet service.”

Under the new ‘six strike’ rules, by comparison, affiliated Internet providers are not compelled to disconnect file sharers, though more ambiguous consequences are said to include a slowdown in access speeds for repeat offenders, blocked access to popular websites, and even compulsory copyright education courses.

The notice sent by NBC Universal also includes a request for the user to permanently delete the offending copyrighted content, though how the company expects to enforce this is, of course, unclear:

“You are being contacted on behalf of NBC Universal and its affiliates (“NBC Universal”) because your Internet account was identified as having been used recently to illegally copy and/or distribute the copyrighted movies and/or television shows listed at the bottom of this letter. This notice provides you with the information you need in order to take immediate action that can prevent serious legal and other consequences. These actions include:

1. Stop downloading or uploading any film or TV shows owned or distributed by NBC Universal without authorization; and

2. Permanently delete from your computer(s) all unauthorized copies you may have already made of these movies and TV shows.

The illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted works are serious offenses that carry with them the risk of substantial monetary damages and, in some cases, criminal prosecution,” the letter reads.

Related articles

• US Internet providers start spy program to stop file-sharing (rt.com)
• ‘Six Strike’ System, Slowing Or Suspending Internet For Illegal Downloads, Took Effect Monday (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)

‘Six Strike’ System, Slowing Or Suspending Internet For Illegal Downloads, Took Effect Monday

‘Six Strike’ System, Slowing Or Suspending Internet For Illegal Downloads, Takes Effect Monday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

02/25/2013

Six strikes and you’re out. (Alamy)

A controversial strategy to combat Internet piracy took effect Monday, meaning subscribers who illegally share movies or songs could be punished by losing Web access or having their broadband speeds slowed to a crawl.

The new “Copyright Alert System,” or “six strikes” system, is the result of a partnership between major Internet service providers and the entertainment industry to deter theft of copyrighted material online. The film and recording industries say online piracy costs them billions of dollars in lost revenue each year. A trade group representing the entertainment industry and Internet providers announced the move in a blog post on Monday.

Under the new system, Internet subscribers accused of online piracy will receive a series of alerts. Critics have called the system “six strikes” because the sixth copyright violation is expected to lead to punishment from the Internet providers.

Full story—>>>

‘Six Strike’ System, Slowing Or Suspending Internet For Illegal Downloads, Takes Effect Monday.

Russia Moves To Hold ISPs Responsible For Illegal File-Sharing

Russia Moves To Hold ISPs Responsible For Illegal File-Sharing | TorrentFreak.

THE KREMLIN, MOSCOW. With President-Elect Dmitry Medvedev at the Meeting with State Duma Leadership and Faction leaders. Русский: МОСКВА, КРЕМЛЬ. С избранным Президентом России Дмитрием Медведевым – на встрече с руководством Государственной Думы и лидерами фракций. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The cyber crime department of Russia’s Interior Ministry says it intends to get tough on the country’s ISPs when their customers share copyrighted or otherwise illegal material. Authorities say they are currently carrying out nationwide checks on ISPs’ local networks and could bring prosecutions as early as next month.

Having largely failed in their earlier bids to aggressively target individual file-sharers, in recent times copyright holders and authorities have been forced to look elsewhere for someone to blame.

Russia Protest (Photo credit: FreedomHouse)

Worldwide lobbying efforts have borne fruit and now it’s almost routine to see ISPs dragged into the debate on illegal file-sharing and treated as if they are the reason the problem exists, or at the very least that it’s their place to take responsibility.

According to a report coming out of Russia, authorities there are about to get tough on Internet service providers whose local networks are being used to share copyrighted and other illegal material.

These networks, present within the ISPs’ own infrastructure, provide users’ access to a wealth of legal content and services such as Internet Relay Chat, but inevitably unauthorized content is available too. While there is no suggestion that the ISPs directly advertise the availability of such material, there are claims that they use the existence of these networks as a plus point when marketing their product.

Authorities say that in advance of a crackdown, the Interior Ministry’s cyber crime department is currently carrying out nationwide checks on Internet service providers. Results of that audit should be come available either late this month or during May.

However, according to representatives from three of the countries largest ISPs who spoke to Vedomosti.ru, none were aware of any investigations currently underway.

Penalties for direct copyright infringement in Russia can be as harsh as 6 years imprisonment. Extending liability to intermediaries is something being touted in a series of amendments to the country’s Civil Code proposed by President Dmitry Medvedev and passed to the State Duma last week. They could be in force as early as September.

via Russia Moves To Hold ISPs Responsible For Illegal File-Sharing | TorrentFreak.

Related articles

• The unnecessary law of copyright- file sharing – Law – Intellectual Property (rawbusinesslaw.com)
• US ISPs will become ‘copyright cops’ starting July 12 (disclose.tv)
• Internet piracy dealt another blow, as two Dutch ISPs are forced to block The Pirate Bay (thenextweb.com)

New Site Shows what you Have Downloaded from Torrents/ Pirate Bay/ Etc.

http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/

This site will come in handy if you want to know what your ISP knows about you. (Illegal downloads, etc.)

Related articles

• Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)

American ISPs to launch massive copyright spying scheme on July 12

American ISPs to launch massive copyright spying scheme on July 12 | Musicians for Freedom.

Editor’s Note: Get ready to send your Fee Schedules to the ISPs! Free speech is our unalienable right. If the men and women working at these ISPs infringe on your right to free speech and fair use of copyrighted materials for nonprofit use, you can sue them, people to people, in a suit at common law pursuant to the 7th amendment to the constitution. For an overview of the basic process, check out Get Out and Stay Out of Jail.

Rawstory If you download potentially copyrighted software, videos or music, your Internet service provider (ISP) has been watching, and they’re coming for you.

Specifically, they’re coming for you on Thursday, July 12.

That’s the date when the nation’s largest ISPs will all voluntarily implement a new anti-piracy plan that will engage network operators in the largest digital spying scheme in history, and see some users’ bandwidth completely cut off until they sign an agreement saying they will not download copyrighted materials.

Word of the start date has been largely kept secret since ISPs announced their plans last June. The deal was brokered by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and coordinated by the Obama Administration. The same groups have weighed in heavily on controversial Internet policies around the world, with similar facilitation by the Obama’s Administration’s State Department.

The July 12 date was revealed by the RIAA’s CEO and top lobbyist, Cary Sherman, during a publishers’ conference on Wednesday in New York, according to technology publication CNet.

The content industries calls this scheme a “graduated response” plan, which will see Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and others spying on users’ Internet activities and watching for potential copyright infringement. Users who are “caught” infringing on a creator’s protected work can then be interrupted with a notice that piracy is forbidden by law and carries penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement, requiring the user to click through saying they understand the consequences before bandwidth is restored, and they could still be subject to copyright infringement lawsuits.

Participating ISPs have a range of options for dealing with customers who continue to pirate media, at that point: They can require that an alleged repeat offender undergo an educational course before their service is restored. They can utilize multiple warnings, restrict access to only certain major websites like Google, Facebook or a list of the top 200 sites going, reduce someone’s bandwidth to practically nothing and even share information on repeat offenders with competing ISPs, effectively creating a sort of Internet blacklist — although publicly, none of the network operators have agreed to “terminate” a customer’s service.

It is because of those reasons that the content industries believe this program achieves much more than what might have been possible in the realm of public policy, and the ISPs appear to agree. The voluntary scheme will be paid for mostly by the content industries, which will share some costs with the ISPs.

Not everyone sees it as a positive: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group, argued that the “graduated response” scheme lacks transparency, and that copyright holders could wield the network operators like a blunt instrument in cases where their claims may not be entirely valid — which is the biggest problem with statutes codified by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. They also pressed for assurances that claim reviews will be conducted by a neutral party, and suggested that users should be given some form of due process before their bandwidth is turned down or cut off entirely.

The shape of the online universe (Photo credit: Adam Crowe)

The EFF also took issue with the system of protest the program puts in place, which only gives users six predetermined “defenses” against a copyright claim. “And even the six enumerated defenses are incomplete,” they complained. “For example, the ‘public domain’ defense applies only if the work was created before 1923 — even though works created after 1923 can enter the public domain in a variety of ways.”

A legislative effort that would have achieved some, but not all, of these ends was utterly destroyed by the Internet’s first ever mass work stoppage late last year, which saw thousands of popular websites go dark in protest. (Disclosure: The Raw Story participated in that protest.)

It’s not yet clear how the tech world will react to the ISPs siding with the content industries to do what the government simply could not.

Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay

Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay | TorrentFreak.

Two large ISPs in the Netherlands have said they will not be blocking subscriber access to The Pirate Bay, as demanded by the Hollywood supported anti-piracy outfit BREIN. T-Mobile and KPN argue that blocking websites is a threat to the open Internet, and suggest that the entertainment industry focuses on new business models instead. BREIN is now expected to take the ISPs to court.

Two weeks ago, the Court of The Hague ruled that Ziggo, the largest ISP in the Netherlands, and competitor XS4ALL have to block access to The Pirate Bay.

The ruling was the first to bring broad censorship to the Netherlands and in a response XS4ALL said they were “bitterly disappointed”, noting that fundamental rights had been traded for “commercial interests.”

For BREIN, the Dutch anti-piracy group that started the court case, the verdict wasn’t quite enough. The Hollywood-backed group wasted no time issuing requests for other ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay as well. Or else.

After internal discussions two large ISPs – KPN and T-Mobile – are now on record stating they will not honor BREIN’s request. This means that millions of Internet users in the Netherlands will still be able to access The Pirate Bay without having to go through proxies.

Speaking out against censorship, both Internet providers state they will only block The Pirate Bay following a court order and that innovation is a better way to deal with the problem of piracy.

“KPN sees the blocking of websites as a drastic measure for which a court order is required,” KPN said in a statement, adding that innovation is needed to curb piracy.

“KPN doesn’t believe a blockade is the right solution. What is needed are robust, attractive business models that are easy to use and offer a fair deal to both producers and consumers of content.”

T-Mobile also said that it will only respond to court orders, while it emphasized the value of an open Internet.

“T-Mobile strongly supports an open Internet and is fundamentally against shutting off access to websites. Dutch law is very clear when it comes to blocking access to the Internet. T-Mobile will only respond to a court ruling, not to demands from a private party such as BREIN.”

If BREIN follows up on threats that were made earlier, both ISPs can expect to be sued by the anti-piracy outfit in the near future. Ziggo and XS4ALL, meanwhile, are expected to enforce the blockade this coming Wednesday, February 1st.

Whether the blockade will have much of an effect is yet to be seen. Judging from what happened in other countries when the site was blocked, users will quickly find ways to route around the blockade to regain access to the world’s largest torrent site.

Related articles

• WordPress Plugin Unblocks Censored Sites, Including The Pirate Bay (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)

“Spanish Napster” Victorious As Court Rejects Major Label Copyright Case

Lou’s note: I am trying Blubster right now and it works like a charm. Downloaded Marley’s “Could you be loved” in 0ne minute with no problems. Just Google Blubster and follow instructions. Enjoy while you can.

Some of the world’s biggest record labels have failed in their attempt to sue a file-sharing developer for copyright infringements carried out by users of his software. During a 2009 trial, Universal, Sony, EMI and Warner had demanded 13 million euros in compensation from Pablo Soto, the creator of the Blubster, Piolet and Manolito P2P sharing applications. A court has now ruled that Soto’s technology is “completely neutral”.

In 2008, Universal, Sony, EMI, Warner and “Spanish RIAA” Promusicae (Productores de Música de España) joined forces to file suit against MP2P Technologies, a company created by Spaniard Pablo Soto.

Born in 1979, Soto had been in the computer business since he was 16 years old and had created several file-sharing applications including Blubster (the so-called “Spanish Napster”) Piolet and Manolito.

But the record companies claimed that Soto designed the software with the express intent of providing a platform for Internet users to download and share music for free, a situation they describe as “unfair competition.” Pablo was also accused of creating file-sharing applications in order to profit from infringements of the plaintiffs’ copyrights.

Following a 2009 trial and several years of litigation, Madrid Commercial Court No. 4 has now delivered its verdict. It rejected the compensation demands of the labels and ruled in favor of the developer, declaring that his technology is “totally neutral.”

“An analogy would be like if we created a private group of friends to share some information, photographs for example,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “But you can not then blame the developer [if people chose to share copyright material], since the only thing he has done is connect the friends.”

The court also rejected the claims of unfair competition, noting that Soto isn’t in the business of making and marketing records, and the plaintiffs aren’t in the file-sharing business.

“We are extremely grateful to the court for finding not only in our favor, but in favor of justice, innovation and in equal access to digital distribution,” said Pablo Soto, founder and CEO of MP2P Technologies. “The copyright conglomerates would like to stifle innovation but today’s significant ruling against this tactic echoes around the globe.”

In an interview with 20minutos.es, Soto extended thanks to his lawyers Javier de la Cueva and David Bravo and noted that although delighted with the outcome (“I feel like i’ve crossed the Gobi desert with no water”), both he and his company have been deeply affected by the litigation.

“I had a company with eight years of work behind it but following the lawsuit I had to reduce staff by more than a half,” said Soto. “The funding was reduced to zero, no-one wanted to invest in a company being sued for 13 million euros.”

Aside from the generalities of the complaint, the case has been controversial since the start. In preparation for filing suit the labels went as far as to hire a private detective who turned up at Pablo’s offices masquerading as a customer. Using a hidden camera the detective took photographic ‘evidence’ which later turned up in court filings.

Promusicae president Antonio Guisasola said the decision will be appealed and expressed hope that in future the new Spanish government would take “resolute action” against people like Soto.

Related Posts

‘Spanish Napster’ Sued For Unfair Competition

Hacktivists Deface Spanish Anti-Piracy Group Website

ISPs End Anti-Piracy Talks With Entertainment Industry

Major Victory Within Reach For European File-Sharers

via “Spanish Napster” Victorious As Court Rejects Major Label Copyright Case | TorrentFreak.

Related articles

• Music biz loses court case against P2P developer (gigaom.com)
• Anti-Piracy Campaigns Suffer Legal Setbacks in Ireland and Spain (blogs.wsj.com)

The Canadian Lawful Access Deception: Feds say bill requiring ISPs to release customer info will help fight web crime.

Feds say bill requiring ISPs to release customer info will help fight web crime. Others cry foul.

By Michael Geis

Early next year, the government will introduce lawful access legislation featuring new information disclosure requirements for Internet providers, the installation of mandated surveillance technologies, and creation of new police powers.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, the chief proponent of the new law, has defended the plans, stating that opponents are putting “the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Toews’ stance in the face of widespread criticism from the privacy community and opposition parties is likely to be accompanied by a series of shaky justifications for the legislation.

For example, the bill will mandate the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight — that is, without a warrant. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. Toews has argued that the mandated information is akin to “phone book data” that is typically publicly available without restriction.

Yet the legislation extends far beyond phone book information by requiring the disclosure of 11 different items, including customer name, address, phone number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers. Many Canadian courts have recognized the privacy interests associated with this data.

In fact, it isn’t only Canadian courts, privacy commissioners, and civil liberties groups that believe striking the right balance on the issue necessitates requiring a warrant.

Former Conservative Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day stated in 2007 that “we have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police the power to get information from Internet companies without a warrant. That’s never been a proposal. It may make some investigations more difficult, but our expectation [of] rights to our privacy are such that we do not plan, nor will we have in place, something that would allow the police to get that information.”

Full accounting needed

Toews will also claim the changes are necessary to ensure that Canadian law enforcement has the tools it needs to combat online crime threats. While everyone agrees that the law must stay up-to-date with emerging technologies, neither the government nor law enforcement has provided credible evidence demonstrating how the current law has impeded active investigations.

One of the only attempts at providing evidence came in 2009 from Toews’ predecessor, former Conservative Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan.

Van Loan pointed to a 2009 kidnapping case in Vancouver as evidence of the need for legislative change, describing witnessing an emergency situation in which Vancouver police waited 36 hours to get the information they needed in order to obtain a warrant for customer name and address information. That sounds like a credible case, but according to documents obtained under access to information, no Internet provider records were actually sought during the investigation.

While Toews will focus on the need to address online threats, he will likely avoid admitting that lawful access will come at an enormous cost. Some smaller Internet providers have warned that they may be forced to shut down if faced with requirements to install costly surveillance technologies with no ability to recoup the investment. Lawful access would not only lead to lost jobs at the affected companies, but the loss of competition could lead to higher Internet costs for all Canadians at the very time Industry Minister Christian Paradis has promised “globally competitive prices for consumers.”

Canadians deserve better than deceptive claims and divisive name-calling. They deserve real judicial oversight before their personal information is disclosed and, given the costs (financial and otherwise), they deserve a full accounting on why lawful access is needed. [Tyee]

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at http://www.michaelgeist.ca.

via The Tyee – The Lawful Access Deception.

Related articles

• Why The Government’s Lawful Access Claims Stand on a Shaky Foundation (michaelgeist.ca)
• Toews standing firm on online surveillance (canada.com)
• Northern Exposure: Unmasking Online Spying in Canada (advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org)

Dump big internet service providers, lobby group says

Dump big internet service providers, lobby group says.

By Jason Magder, The Gazette November 20, 2011

MONTREAL – About 94 per cent of Canadians get their Internet service from one of a handful of large telecom companies.

Now a net neutrality lobby group is urging people to dump big Telecom in droves, in the wake of a decision Tuesday by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

The CRTC ruling corrects one that was reversed in February, in which the CRTC ruled that large telecom companies like Bell, Videotron and Rogers could set usage caps for the independent Internet service providers that use their networks and resell that service to Canadians. The Conservative government overturned that decision, saying it was anti-competitive, and ordered the CRTC back to the drawing board.

As a result of Tuesday’s ruling, the telecom companies can choose to either charge independents a flat rate for usage, or based on capacity, and independent ISPs will have to decide each month how much bandwidth to purchase.

One of the lobby groups advocating loudest against telecom companies was Vancouver-based Open Media, which hailed the decision, saying it will keep independent ISPs competitive with the likes of Bell and Videotron. The group started an online petition against what was called usage-based billing, which was signed by 500,000 Canadians. It’s new campaign calls for Canadians to dump their large telecom providers and to get their Internet from independents, many of whom currently don’t impose caps on the amount their customers can download.

“With this decision, it’s safe to say that these smaller companies will now be around for a while,” said Steve Anderson, the executive director of Open Media.

But as Anderson was claiming victory, the largest independent ISP said the rates adopted by the CRTC will hurt its business.

“Right now, the rates are extremely high,” said Patrick Lehoux, chief business development officer for Sudbury, Ont.-based Teksavvy, which has about 160,000 subscribers across Canada.

“At Teksavvy, we have always offered large data usage caps, and a lot of unlimited packages, and these rates are a threat to those packages. They don’t make sense.”

In fact, the large telecom companies also claimed victory in the wake of the decision, saying it supported their ability to manage traffic and discourage bandwidth hogs.

Iain Grant, the executive director of the Seaboard Group, a technology research and strategy consulting company, said Tuesday’s ruling didn’t necessarily improve the competitive landscape in Canada, but it at least didn’t make it worse.

“It’s better than the last ruling, which was much more directly in Bell’s favour,” Grant said.

“It’s a tough life being an independent ISP under the rules we have in Canada.”

Grant said there is still a competitive disadvantage for the independents especially considering the larger telecom companies can offer bundled discounts to customers who have Internet, television, telephone, and cellular phone service.

Anderson said some of the independent ISPs already offer phone service, and are looking to offer competing television service, delivered over the Internet, much like Bell’s IPTV service called Fibe TV.

But Grant said that seems like a bit of a pipe dream.

“They would have to buy the programming,” he said, adding that telecom companies Bell, Quebecor, and Rogers all own television networks as well, so they can set prices for those services.

Grant said to make the competitive landscape more equitable, Canada should consider what’s called structural separation, which would essentially take ownership of the network infrastructure away from Bell and Videotron, and create new companies that would manage the infrastructure and sell the service back to the service providers.

“In this instance, Bell would spin off the plumbing side of its business, and then it would buy from that company, and so would everyone else,” Grant said.

“And since the company is no longer reporting to Bell, it can offer equivalent service to everyone.”

This is a model that was adopted in the U.K., which had the second-lowest rates for high-speed Internet according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Anderson said structural separation is his group’s ultimate goal, but he knows it will take a long time to get to that point.

He said this week’s CRTC decision, could be one step toward correcting what he calls “broken telecom.”

“Policy doesn’t move fundamentally in huge jolts,” Anderson said.

“But I think we can get there.”

Spokespeople for Bell and Videotron declined requests interviews on this subject.

jmagder@montrealgazette.com

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Dump+internet+service+providers+lobby+group+says/5735452/story.html#ixzz1eGmpM718

Related articles

• CRTC internet ruling may boost prices (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)
• Usage-based billing decision: What it means for Canadian Internet users (business.financialpost.com)

Taking Back the Internet

Three greedy grabs by Big Telecom, and how to put the Net back in peoples’ hands.

By Steve Anderson, 12 Oct 2011, TheTyee.ca

Canada has an Internet “openness and access deficit.” That was the starting point for OpenMedia.ca’s “Casting an Open Net” report published earlier this year. The report noted three disturbing practices employed by several of Canada’s dominant Internet Service Providers (ISPs):

1. Many Canadian ISPs (Bell, Rogers and Shaw) selectively limit access to certain online services in a practice known as “throttling,” or the slowing down of Internet traffic. This renders certain services almost unusable, as expressed in the recent complaint against Rogers, submitted to the CRTC, regarding the ISP’s throttling of World of Warcraft, a popular online game.

2. Cable television and mobile providers are offering limited and controlled versions of the Internet over television and mobile devices, either by providing special priority access to certain services such as Facebook (in the case of mobile providers) or by providing web services via cable television. These take resources (in the form of either users or bandwidth) away from the open, public Internet.s

3. Big ISPs have been imposing usage-based billing (UBB) — setting low usage caps and charging high per-use prices, inconsistent with global standards. This discriminates against bandwidth-heavy activities such as online video consumption and distribution, online gaming and web development. When ISPs apply these costs, but exempt their own media services (video-on-demand or IPTV) from the caps, they effectively stack the cards in their favour in a way that compromises the open and democratic nature of the Internet.

Taken together, these activities stifle innovation, free expression and new opportunities for participatory democracy; however, with the exponential growth of the pro-Internet community this year, most visible with the StopTheMeter.ca campaign, the big ISPs appear to be losing their grip on Canada’s Internet. This year, every major political party has come out against the punitive Internet metering schemes (usage-based billing) that ISPs are trying to impose on Canadians. What’s more, commissioners at the CRTC, the regulator of the telecommunications industry, seem to have finally figured out that they need to do their part to stop Big Telecom price gouging and to ensure Canadians have affordable access to the Internet.

Alas, the big phone and cable companies are not giving up without a fight — in fact, they’re doubling down on greed. These companies are raising prices across the board while they still can, and are trying to cozy up to policymakers: this summer, Bell appointed former industry minister Jim Prentice as a board member, and Telus did the same with former Conservative MP Stockwell Day.

Big Telecom’s appointment of these key cabinet ministers reeks of patronage and backroom deals. The tide has turned against Big Telecom, and now they appear to be willing to cheat to hold onto their control of the telecom market and your wallet.

For the time being, Big Telecom continues to outspend Canadians by investing a chunk of their profits (secured in large part by gouging Canadians) in maintaining their dominance. In essence, big ISPs are gouging Internet users and using our hard-earned money to pay for an army of lawyers, lobbyists and expensive board appointments.

To unravel this system of telecom market control, we’ll need to expand upon the pro-Internet community’s success in pushing back against Big Telecom earlier this year. Our success resulted from the collaboration of a broad network of people and organizations who decided ‘enough is enough’ when Big Telecom decided to gouge us even further with new usage fees. It’s time to scale up our efforts.

via The Tyee – Taking Back the Internet.

Related articles

• CRTC tells Rogers to stop slowing down the speed of online games (theprovince.com)