Share:

Shaw Joins Bell to Ban Net Neutrality

Share:

Yesterday, it was reported that Bell is leading a coalition of Canada’s biggest media companies, that intends to put an end to net neutrality in the name of blocking piracy and now, Shaw is also making the case for website blocking by devoting several pages to supporting it. According to Michael Geist, Shaw seeks to equate access to grey market satellite services with unauthorized streaming services.

Shaw

While Rogers has indicated that it is still considering whether to join Bell’s coalition or not, Shaw is focused on granting approvals for blocking with court oversight.

Shaw acknowledges that Canadian copyright law already addresses Internet piracy and that court orders can be obtained to shut down services that violate the law. It however argues that even with a court order, the CRTC must still approve website blocking.

Shaw submits that the CRTC should consider using its authority under section 36 to approve court orders for ISPs to block access to online services infringing Canadian copyright law. While the Telecommunications Act’s objectives articulated in section 7 do not refer directly to the promotion or protection of a Canadian rights market, there is a clear case that blocking access to illegal streaming services responds to the “economic and social requirements of user of telecommunication services”, in furtherance of paragraph 7(e).

As carriers are lining up in support of some form of website blocking, the issue is already sparking a political backlash, with Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux raising the issue in the House of Commons yesterday. You can read more about it at this link.

Share:

  • xxxJDxxx

    Is Telus on board with this nonsense? This is an important enough issue to me to switch providers. I don’t want my money going to a company that doesn’t support net neutrality.

  • MrXax

    Burn in hell, Shaw.

  • poopchute

    VPN providers would love this.

  • AccordTR

    Guess I’ll be cancelling my $240 a month package. Hit Shaw where it hurts, lost income.

  • Chrome262

    yeah this is crappy. And I was thinking of switching to freedom. we don’t get shaw cable here in Toronto because of the deals they have made with Rogers. kind of thought Rogers would do this before Shaw. And once the political climate changes from grumpy old people who are afraid of the world and the web, this should be less of a problem

  • lostcanadien

    I nearly just signed with Shaw. So far glad I stuck with Telus!!!

  • Victorious Secret

    I will NEVER switch to Bell or Shaw as long as they support ending Net Neutrality

  • U

    Will switch to Telus as long as they don’t join Shaw or Bell..

  • Brandon Arneson

    Why does this even need to happen??!?!?!!?!?!?

  • Fshumayrqan

    Thank goodness i left bell.

  • Martyn

    Canada should get away from the current model of providers owning the network they’re delivering on. There should be companies that own the (neutral) network and providers that buy space on that network, both fully independent of each other. That way the providers will really have to compete in price and product. A product could have limitations or filters, or not. The customer will have a better choice.

  • Grant Russell

    Telus is the only ISP in Canada that is actually already guilty of Net Neutrality violations. They were found to be blocking internet traffic to a specific site that was hosting content that shed Telus in poor light.

  • Ivan

    Looks like i will have to leave SHAW( a.k.a. Freedom Mobile, Wind Mobile)

  • jay

    I am sure that all others follow. To bad wonder how much it is to buy politicians in Canada.

  • raslucas

    Yes. Telus’ internet does some seriously weird traffic shaping sometimes… it’s the reason I’m switching away from them.

  • VPN forever

    Shaw can do all that they want with net neutrality for as much as I dislike it. There is a reason that I have a VPN connection and if this goes ahead I will definitely be using it more.

    This is all about preventing people from streaming shows that they offer on their cable network and nothing more. Cable television is becoming like newspapers. Less and less people are using them and for good reason.

  • Jim

    I can think of no better reason to oppose this initiative than the support of these two greedy monopolies.

    What is good for Canadian consumers is never good for these two (and Rogers) self-interest.

  • raslucas

    I actually get the rationale, if pirate bay can ONLY be accessed with a vpn, people will HAVE to use a vpn always, and these two companies will get much less infringement notices.

  • jo pot

    I’m going to write Rogers and tell them I’ll stick with them over Bell and Shaw if they refuse to join the monopoly on anti-net-neutrality

  • zee

    ? I dont understand.Oh
    ! I looked it up Shaw owns Freedom – had no idea.
    Ill have to quit both if they keep pushing these bad ideas.
    SO far Im thinking Tech Savy, but whats a good phone option? I pay 25 bucks a month at freedom.

  • Christopher R

    Believe me Rogers will join; I doubt it will happen anyhow.

  • Jay

    Bull. Shaw was selling “QoS enhancements” for $10 per month if you wanted your voip (vonage, etc) or skype to work back in 2005 right after they launched Shaw digital phone.

  • Jay

    Public Mobile is fairly inexpensive if you catch a sale. It’s owned by Telus.

  • Jay

    “Shaw can do all that they want” – No. It’s not okay to give them an inch. If you let them get away with this, next they will be charging you an extra $25 / month for the “work from home” package to unblock VPN traffic on your residential connection.

  • Alex Lafleur

    Because they want more money. That’s always the reason.

Deals