Crap I wrote my Member of Parliament but didn't re-read my email. After mailing it I noticed I missed an O on the end of Hello.

So my email read "Hell Mr. Fast I am Joel Reimer and I voted for you" I hope he knows its a typo or that might seem alittle offensive. Dangit I need to re-read stuff before I post it!

On topic I'll write Prime Minister Harper tomorow. If anyone can do something about it he can. Well as longs he's not thrown from power with a new election.

Shaw already applied to the CRTC for per usage billing.  It's lose-lose up here.  And it's getting worse too, I know with Rogers anyways, they're starting to check all packets and they know what you are doing with your internet, playing games, streaming movies, pirating, etc.  Worst case scenario is that they make a "gamers plan", with their new per usage billing, or a "streaming movie plan", etc.

I'm connected via cable with Cogeco. They charge me a monthly fee for a limit of 80GB. If I exceed that, I get charged a little premium but I never exceeded it. If I would download more, I could always take an other service pack and get a 120GB monthly limit, and I think there is an other one that costs even more and allows for unlimited download.

I think it works well like this, and I don't see why they should change their way of billing their costumers. Basically, with Cogeco, it's up to the costumer to know what kind of download limit they need and choose and pay for the service pack that better suits them, or adjust their usage so they don't get charged for "over-usage".

Bell and Rogers have always been known to be sharks. This is not surprising to me that they would want to go that route.

Why should bytes not be treated the same?  A byte is a packet of 1s and 0s, that is all.  It is how computers translate it that determine otherwise.  By saying that one can show favortism, an ISP can then show partiality to their own programming over others.  Like Comcast, and others would have a vested interest in blocking Netflix or Hulu, for example.  This goes against the nature of what the Internet has been built upon.

If/when bytes are treated the same (no matter the content), then they will simply charge based on the amount of 1's and 0's that are being transferred - capping. Net neutrality doesn't really change that problem. If a service like Netflix is taking up 20-30% of all bandwidth in an entire country, it is safe to assume that the cable providers - the ones having to lay down the data trunks - will do what they can to ensure profits are coming in to a degree that will allow them to continue expansion, and/or reduce usage on the high-bandwidth services.

Thing is that the 1s and 0s tax the system just the same.  The net neutrality argument is that, unless it is treated the same, the access provider to the Internet will end up showing favoritism to their content of choice.  They may also end up making any other rival content so unusable, that no one can access it and it isn't worth the time.

The issue here is amount, from a technological standpoint.  Nature of the content becomes relevant from a business perspective, if an internet access provider wants to be able to get a competitive advantage for their own content.

I wrote my MP (Member of Parliament) I also wrote the Prime Ministers office. I got a reply very quickly from my MP. Ed Fast he said that the CRTC is seperate from the Government. The Government appoints people to the CRTC however they do not set their policies or have the authority to over rule them. Today Stephen Harper officially condemned the CRTC's decision but it looks that outside of them trying to influence the CRTC they actually have no authority to over rule them.

Ed Fast said to email the CRTC with our concerns. I was going to do so but the CRTC site was down (Maybe from all the other pissed off people).

Probably, though I was reading that Harper is sending that bill back for review.

It's better than the alternative. When ISPs can start influencing companies like Netflix (pay us a huge fee or we'll promote our own streaming service by capping our users' bandwidth to your site and you'll lose subscriptions), consumers lose.

Net neutrality isn't perfect but it's FAR AND AWAY the best solution for end users. Otherwise, ISPs can bully around whomever they like to increase profits and reduce service quality. The only people who win under that scenario are the Time-Warners and Comcasts of the world.

Or maybe it means increased freedom in CA.  Isn't that a good thing or are you against freedom?