Canada's Bell Tried To Have VPNs Banned During NAFTA Negotiations

from the missing-the-point dept

Countries around the world continue to wage a not particularly subtle war on the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and encryption. In Russia, the government has all but banned the use of VPNs by layering all manner of obnoxious restrictions and caveats on VPN operators. The goal, as we've seen in China and countless other countries, is to ban VPN use without making it explicitly clear you're banning VPN use. The deeper goal is always the same: less privacy and online freedom for users who use such tools to dodge surveillance or other, even dumber government policies.

Of course there's plenty of companies eager to see VPN use banned as well, whether it's the entertainment industry hoping to thwart piracy, or broadcasters trying to hinder those looking to dance around geographical viewing restrictions. Lost in the hysteria is usually the fact that VPNs are just another security tool with a myriad of purposes, most of which aren't remotely nefarious and shouldn't be treated as such.

Apparently, you can count Canadian telecom incumbent Bell among the companies hoping to ban VPN use. Anja Karadeglija, the editor of paywalled telecom news outlet the Wire Report, obtained documents this week highlighting how Bell had been pushing Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland for a VPN ban to be included in NAFTA negotiations. Why? It doesn't want users using VPNs to watch the US Netflix catalog:

"In its submission, Bell argued that Canadians accessing content from a US service with a VPN “unjustly enriches the US service, which has not paid for the Canadian rights” but nonetheless makes that content available to Canadians. Bell’s media arm reportedly spends millions on content for it streaming service, Crave TV, which allows Canadians to stream content from American networks such as HBO and Showtime."

Again though, it's not the VPN doing that. And if you want to stop users from flocking to better content catalogs elsewhere on the continent, you should focus your ire on the things causing that to happen -- like increasingly dated and absurd geo-viewing restrictions, and your own substandard content offerings that fail to adequately match up. That message was lost on Bell, however:

“Canada should seek rules in NAFTA that require each party to explicitly make it unlawful to offer a VPN service used for the purpose of circumventing copyright, to allow rightsholders to enforce this rule, and to confirm that it is a violation of copyright if a service effectively makes content widely available in territories in which it does not own the copyright due to an ineffective or insufficiently robust geo-targeting system,” the submission stated."

How exactly you're supposed to determine that somebody is using a VPN to not watch Bell's own television services isn't really explained, and the fact that enforcement would likely be technically impossible appears to have been an afterthought. As Canadian Law Professor Michael Geist was quick to note, trying to ban VPNs just as they're reaching critical mass as a partial solution to raging North American privacy scandals suggests Bell may not exactly have its finger on the pulse of common sense on this particular subject.

Filed Under: canada, streaming, trade agreements, usmca, vpn, vpns
Companies: bell canada

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2019 @ 4:17pm

    One possible reason too could be those who use VPNs to avoid throttling. My cell phone provider, on its unlimited plan, throttles video higher than 480p, but I can get around that using a VPN, so they cannot see what I am doing.

    Using a VPN to defeat their throttling does not break any current laws. If I want to watch YouTube videos at 1080p, using a VPN to circumvent throttling, that does not break any current laws.

    And Metro, before they were bought by Tmobile, blocked tethered PCs from surfinf the web, by examining the traffic going out and determning that a PC was being used to surf the web and blocked it, though all other Internet traffic was not blocked.

    When I had to move on a moments notice a few years ago, and had to wait for Internet service to be installed, I used a VPN to bypass Metro's blocknig of web surfing from a PC. Using a VPN to access the web in that manner did not break any laws, either in California, or at the federal level. The only thing that sucked about having to use a VPN was that the server was outside the USA, and I could not access the US Netflix library. I ended up having to watch the Canadian and British Netflix selections, which are not as big as the US ones.

    And also, when I ran my VPN service on the side when I had my online radio station is that I used to see connections from high schools all over America going to social media. Those students that used my VPN to bypass school filtering did not break any laws using my filter to access social media.

    And when I saw connections from workplaces, on Cyber Monday, going to shopping sites, the employees at those companies did not break any criminal laws by using my service to bypass workplace filtering and take advantage of Cyber Monday sales. While they could have been fired, they could not have been prosecuted for anything,.

    That will be another argument to ban VPNs.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.