Skip to main content

bellsh*t

i was smart enough to avoid ever getting internet service from bell, but, as you can see, those who decided to give their service a chance can look forward to a slow, grinding future on the internet, thanks to a new crtc ruling on the subject of "internet throttling".

this process basically allows bell to offer different access speeds to customers paying for the same service. more disturbingly, it gives bell, a privately held company with no responsibility to the public, the exclusive right to determine whose internet access will be slowed and when. despite the fact that the internet, as a part of the national communications infrastructure, is supposed to be administered in the public interest, control over whose access takes precedence is left in the hands of a company that already seems to hold its customers (see previous posts "bellderdash", "insult to injury", "the never-ending story" and "end game") beneath contempt, even when they are at fault.

sadly, this is something which is to be expected from the crtc, a perennially out-of-touch, slow-to-respond bureaucratic monolith and useless vacuum of taxpayer money. this is an organisation that has for decades cried out to be leveled and rebuilt from the ground up. let's see if any political parties are willing to rise to that challenge.

Comments

Aaron Fenwick said…
Wow, that is quite crappy indeed...
At least this shows that all governments are rubbish at regulating new technologies. We currently have a government who want to enforce ISP level filtering using a "Black list" of websites developed by government department.
So in other words, not only something that will result in a universal slowdown as all content is filtered but a carte' blanche' for the government to block websites without public review.

Thank goodness for the Greens.
flora_mundi said…
well, i think that the united states really has us all beat in terms of not understanding the new technologies that they're supposed to regulate... let's all take a moment to remember former alaskan senator and convicted felon ted stevens (it does my heart good just to type those words)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…