The CRTC has posted their form for public comments on the Bell application to block websites.

[Chuffered]

Reddit thread.

 

Copying a explanation comment because they did it way better than I ever could. This is the beginning of implementing the UK blocking system in Canada. There will be mission creep just like the UK. The beginning of telling you what you are and are not aloud to do with the bandwidth you pay for. They say it's for one thing now but just wait. you already see how authoritarian they are.

 

CRTC Link

 

[–]multiplegeorges r/Canada 

So, I went through the primary document in the application bundle and here it is in their own words.

What they want implemented

The Commission would identify these piracy sites after receiving a recommendation from a new independent organization established by the Commission (the “Independent Piracy Review Agency” or “IPRA”). The role of the IPRA would be to consider applications by rightsholders and other interested parties (“applicants”) seeking to add a site to the list of piracy sites to which access must be disabled. It would review evidence submitted by the applicant, the websites, ISPs, and other interested parties, including in an oral hearing if appropriate, and would make recommendations to the Commission. The Commission would consider the evidence and these recommendations and, if approved, would require and authorize ISPs to disable access to these piracy sites.

Note that this does not explain who would make up the IPRA and where they would come from. They propose that this be determined at a later date. It will almost certainly be staffed and lead by industry beholden people.

Why they want this implemented

The cite lots of general US and Australian stats and apply them to the Canadian situation, assuming it is the same here:

Indeed, in Australia the impact of piracy on Ten Network was described by its co-chief executive as being in the hundreds of millions of dollars and a direct cause of the potential bankruptcy of the network.

What does this have to do with Canada?

As reported in a recent Sandvine study, approximately 7% of North American households (which would be approximately 1 million households in Canada) use illegal piracy add-ons within the KODI media centre to access content from major piracy sites

Nice extrapolation. No evidence from Canadian sources on this.

Here's the actual reason they want this implemented.

Cable, satellite, and IPTV BDUs in Canada collectively have lost subscribers every year since 2012, losing more than 400,000 total over that time despite the number of occupied private dwellings increasing by approximately 700,000 during the same period.

They aren't able to compete with OTT services and are losing subscribers.

While it is impossible to determine precisely how many of these 1.1 million households are lost subscribers due to piracy, the experience of relevant members of the coalition with their customers confirms that consumers who engage with piracy sites are many times more likely to cancel legal services or never subscribe to them in the first place than are those that do not engage with piracy sites.

And they don't even know if how much piracy is affecting their poor subscriber numbers, but oh man, they are sure that it is!

But don't worry, they want this done to protect us from the hackers...

The Pirate Bay began hijacking users’ computers without notice to mine cryptocurrency. Also last year Exodus, one of the most widely used piracy add-ons for illicit streaming devices, introduced malware that turned its users’ computers into a botnet for a DDOS attack.

Some tired arguments we've seen before

Argument	Reality
They are losing all their subscribers to piracy	Wrong. They are not competing effectively against OTT services like Netflix. Plus, their set-top boxes are the goddamn worst pieces of crap machines and I can use my phone to stream Netflix to my Chromecast. AND THERE ARE NO ADS. They are losing subscribers because their services are bad.
Every downloaded show or movie counts as negative revenue in their spreadsheets.	This assumes everyone who pirate something would actually spend money on it. This is obviously false and is the same tired old argument we saw in software piracy and music piracy. For both those industries, cheaper and more convenient services have effectively wiped out piracy: Steam and Spotify/iTunes.
It's killing the Canadian creative industry	False. It's doing great. Consumer spending is up. // The whole market is shifting to OTT and non-broadcaster production is doing well.

In Conclusion

It's the same argument we saw against music piracy with Napster and against video game piracy with IRC/FTP servers back in the day. Their content is too expensive and/or too annoying to access. Both those industries have solved this issue by adapting to the market. Our domestic BDUs do not want to adapt or invest in competitive services.

They are proposing a hammer to kill a flea. I propose that piracy is a tiny part of the problem and if there was a way I could buy channels a la carte without ads, I might actually get a cable box again.

Until then, it's Netflix and going to the movie theatre for me.

[GDRRiley]

rip you all. 

[Eduard the weeb]

though you were talking about that test I took in 2-5th grade lol

[dalekphalm]

Well, I submitted my comments in opposition of the application.

 

And hell, I even subscribe to Cable TV.

 

But this is total bullshit. I agree with @Chuffered's comments.

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, Chuffered said:

Until then, it's Netflix and going to the movie theatre for me.

In many places that is not viable, it has a very limited catalog because of the local parasites...

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

In many places that is not viable, it has a very limited catalog because of the local parasites...

In Canada, Netflix is actually pretty decent. Does it have the selection that US Netflix has? No. No one does. But it does have lots of new releases, and a huge back catalogue of older movies and TV shows.

[jagdtigger]

59 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

In Canada, Netflix is actually pretty decent. Does it have the selection that US Netflix has? No. No one does. But it does have lots of new releases, and a huge back catalogue of older movies and TV shows.

Good for you then, by US us its pretty cut down... One of the side effects of not letting an outdated and obsolete business model go.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Good for you then, by US its pretty cut down... One of the side effects of not letting an outdated and obsolete business model go.

That's a shame.

 

However, since this article is about the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission), dropping Cable TV and going with just Netflix, is a 100% viable alternative.

[mr moose]

It seems to me that allowing any private organization to control/influence  what gets regulated is a recipe for danger.

 

Having said that I can't stand people using slippery slope arguments.  Mission creep is only an issue if it observed or planned, if it is then it's speculation.   Allowing governments to regulate is not a bad thing, so long as the people have the power to vote them out and install a government that listens to the people.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It seems to me that allowing any private organization to control/influence  what gets regulated is a recipe for danger.

 

Having said that I can't stand people using slippery slope arguments.  Mission creep is only an issue if it observed or planned, if it is then it's speculation.   Allowing governments to regulate is not a bad thing, so long as the people have the power to vote them out and install a government that listens to the people.

 

 

The problem is that Bell Canada wants to get this regulation passed, without telling the public how the "Independent review panel" would work, or who would staff it.

 

Personally I suspect the CRTC will reject it - they've been doing really good lately about being pro-consumer.

[PocketNerd]

Sent my response, they're never going to squash Piracy. And as we all are aware, it's far more beneficial for everyone if they just adapt their services/products to the needs of consumers.

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Sent my response, they're never going to squash Piracy. And as we all are aware, it's far more beneficial for everyone if they just adapt their services/products to the needs of consumers.

Yep - if Rogers and Bell actually got with the times and offered TV Subscription packages at the price people want to pay, with the content people want? Well, they wouldn't have lost 700,000 subscribers to Netflix.

[PocketNerd]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Yep - if Rogers and Bell actually got with the times and offered TV Subscription packages at the price people want to pay, with the content people want? Well, they wouldn't have lost 700,000 subscribers to Netflix.

I myself will admit that Rogers and Bell won't ever be able to truly compete on price with Netflix, the overhead overall is just too high compared to how Netflix operates (since Netflix is entirely on the Internet and doesn't need fancy broadcast equipment).

 

That said. They absolutely need to prove to consumers that there's not only a need for them, but there's value in what they offer. And right now they aren't doing either of those.

[dalekphalm]

24 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

I myself will admit that Rogers and Bell won't ever be able to truly compete on price with Netflix, the overhead overall is just too high compared to how Netflix operates (since Netflix is entirely on the Internet and doesn't need fancy broadcast equipment).

 

That said. They absolutely need to prove to consumers that there's not only a need for them, but there's value in what they offer. And right now they aren't doing either of those.

Here's the thing. Rogers doesn't need "fancy broadcast equipment". At least, not in the traditional Cable TV way. They could easily switch to a much lower cost IPTV system (in fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if they already use some form of IPTV for their digital broadcasts).

 

And they don't need to match Neflix's prices. I agree - that'll never happen. But by offering "live TV" broadcasts at a lower price, they would capture way more business.

 

Serving up channels a la carte, but at a reasonable price, or having a "buy everything" package, also at a reasonable price, is a good solution.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The problem is that Bell Canada wants to get this regulation passed, without telling the public how the "Independent review panel" would work, or who would staff it.

 

Personally I suspect the CRTC will reject it - they've been doing really good lately about being pro-consumer.

Hence my opposition to allowing any private organization to control/influence  what gets regulated.

[WkdPaul]

2 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

Sent my response

Same here.

 

Forgot to copy my reply so I could post it here, but if anyone wants to just copy/paste an answer, the reddit thread is full of them.

 

My reply is kind of similar to this one ;

 

[Paranoid Kami]

They're losing customers because people are moving away from cable subscriptions and into things like Netflix, which are way more convenient as you can watch whenever you want, on multiple devices and it's cheap. I know many middle aged people still watch cable as that's what they're used to but the new generation has moved on. I only know one person who has Kodi, but pretty much everyone I know pirates everything if they can even if they could afford paying.

 

I'm all for reducing piracy as I know the majority just want to get things for free and they know they can get away with it. I'm not agreeing to some shady committee unless I know more about it though. It's not worth it if it slows down the network or affects legitimate sites. Time to read a few pages of filings to see what they wrote I guess.

[Paranoid Kami]

Finished reading it. It doesn't say that Bell would be running the committee. It says made by the CRTC to be an independant organization. What weirds me out is how they say the people in the organization would be unpaid. There are also a bunch of other things I briefly skimmed over and didn't understand so I would rather say 'no' just to be safe.

[RagnarokDel]

14 hours ago, Paranoid Kami said:

 I only know one person who has Kodi, but pretty much everyone I know pirates everything if they can even if they could afford paying.

I only pirate things that are not available legally here.

[LAwLz]

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

It seems to me that allowing any private organization to control/influence  what gets regulated is a recipe for danger.

 

Having said that I can't stand people using slippery slope arguments.  Mission creep is only an issue if it observed or planned, if it is then it's speculation.   Allowing governments to regulate is not a bad thing, so long as the people have the power to vote them out and install a government that listens to the people.

I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments either, but I don't think there has been a single country with special Internet regulation which hasn't been adding more and more blocks after it was first introduced.

Take the UK as an example. It started with an opt-in filter for blocking porn. Then it got extended to cover drugs and other subjects as well. Then that filter went from opt-in to opt-out.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments either, but I don't think there has been a single country with special Internet regulation which hasn't been adding more and more blocks after it was first introduced.

Take the UK as an example. It started with an opt-in filter for blocking porn. Then it got extended to cover drugs and other subjects as well. Then that filter went from opt-in to opt-out.

Agreed - we have other countries - ones with extremely similar laws as Canada (Ya know, since we based our legal system after theirs and all), that are doing this. There is precedent.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments either, but I don't think there has been a single country with special Internet regulation which hasn't been adding more and more blocks after it was first introduced.

Take the UK as an example. It started with an opt-in filter for blocking porn. Then it got extended to cover drugs and other subjects as well. Then that filter went from opt-in to opt-out.

 

In a properly functioning democracy, when governments keep adding (actually engaging in a slippery slope) then you vote them out and have regulation or additions repealed.

If you can't get that to happen then the issue does not lie with regulation but the fact that the government no longer represents or is accountable to the people. Which is a bigger problem.

 

We had the beginnings of a similar issue in Australia where one of our previous governments wanted to introduce something even worse:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-21/censorship-labors-hidden-policy/914176

 

It did not happen because people voted no.

 

This same said party then tried to curb media reporting:

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/how-julia-gillard-was-ready-to-censor-our-free-media/news-story/c95cb7bb5280d56e9ed63698179f7a15?sv=8a7b9643d6be9b97579b67c84c475c8b

 

Fortunately again justice won out (in a way) and none of their policies became law.

 

That was a very scary government for Australia and still are a scary opposition party today. But as I said, so long as the people get what they want, then slippery slopes don't indicate a flaw with policy but a flaw with the government controlling it. 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

In a properly functioning democracy, when governments keep adding (actually engaging in a slippery slope) then you vote them out and have regulation or additions repealed.

If you can't get that to happen then the issue does not lie with regulation but the fact that the government no longer represents or is accountable to the people. Which is a bigger problem.

 

We had the beginnings of a similar issue in Australia where one of our previous governments wanted to introduce something even worse:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-21/censorship-labors-hidden-policy/914176

 

It did not happen because people voted no.

 

This same said party then tried to curb media reporting:

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/how-julia-gillard-was-ready-to-censor-our-free-media/news-story/c95cb7bb5280d56e9ed63698179f7a15?sv=8a7b9643d6be9b97579b67c84c475c8b

 

Fortunately again justice won out (in a way) and none of their policies became law.

 

That was a very scary government for Australia and still are a scary opposition party today. But as I said, so long as the people get what they want, then slippery slopes don't indicate a flaw with policy but a flaw with the government controlling it. 

 

 

I definitely understand your point, but it's always easier to prevent legislation from being passed, then to repeal an existing piece of legislation.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - we have other countries - ones with extremely similar laws as Canada (Ya know, since we based our legal system after theirs and all), that are doing this. There is precedent.

The reason you should be opposing this though is not because other governments are fucked up, but because the policy is wrong.  Arguing that the government might do something because others have is not a solid argument, while arguing the actual facts of the policy being incredible unfair and deficient is very solid.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, mr moose said:

The reason you should be opposing this though is not because other governments are fucked up, but because the policy is wrong.  Arguing that the government might do something because others have is not a solid argument, while arguing the actual facts of the policy being incredible unfair and deficient is very solid.

My answer to this is: both

 

This is wrong, and it's also a demonstrated slippery slope that other countries have tried.