Russ Harvey Consulting - Computer and Internet Services

The Open Internet is at Risk

Net Neutrality | Two-Tiered Internet | DRM
Stop The Rogers-Shaw Deal

The Internet shouldn't be like cable! Stop trying to make this happen.

The Internet at Risk

Broadband is a human right, the nervous system of the 21st century. It is far too important to be left up to the whims of monopolists building atop public infrastructure without any commitment to the public interest. — Cory Doctorow — Activist, Author, and Journalist

Thats a Lot of Data

From the dawn of civilization until 2003, humankind generated five exabytes of data. Now we produce five exabytes every two days…and the pace is accelerating. — Eric Schmidt

The Guardian reports that

  • 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.
  • 500 million tweets are sent every day.
  • 30 billion WhatsApp messages are sent every day.
  • 40 million photos are uploaded to Instagram every day.

Domestic Spying

Large scale spying on ordinary citizens and opposition to encryption are two of the ways government has turned a basically free and open Internet into a data-collection nightmare.

Both government and corporations cry foul when you try to block these attempts.

Save Net Neutrality in Canada

Remember when big media controlled everything you read and watched?

They'd like that control back.

Undemocratic forces are working to destroy the Internet we know and love — a magical place of dank memes and video streams, the essential backbone we use to communicate with our loved ones, our families, and our government.

 

If they get their way, many of our favorite websites and services will be slowed to a crawl, and we'll end up with an “Internet” that looks more like cable TV — a boring, money-making machine for telecom giants.
OpenMedia

Canada's media companies want to change the status of net neutrality in Canada.

The federal government has repeatedly stated its commitment to Net Neutrality, but Canada's Telecommunications Act is currently under review.

 

And we know lobbyists — and now the CRTC — are pushing for looser regulations, following the U.S.' Net Neutrality repeal as an example.

 

The federal government must reject any effort by the CRTC to weaken Canada's Net Neutrality framework. — OpenMedia
The fight over net neutrality is starting to heat up — and the big difference between this time and 2015 is that big ISPs seem incredibly emboldened to say whatever they want without any regard for the truth. — The Verge

Return to Top

Bill C-10

Bill C-10 is supposed to grab control back from big Internet companies.

Instead, the Liberal government caved to lobbyists and removed sections exempting individual creators from being subject to CRTC regulation to ensure it passed.

By removing the user generated content exclusion, Bill C-10 represents an unconscionable attack on the free expression rights of Canadians. It must be defeated. — Michael Geist

CanCon Imposed on the Internet

It imposes the twisted Canadian content (CanCon) rules onto regulating the Internet where the only beneficiaries are the big Canadian media companies and their overpriced cable packages.

This isn't about our stories, and it isn't about our jobs; it is about inflating the profits of legacy media companies.

 

Canadian storytellers not supported by the current CanCon system won't see a dime from C-10 for many years (if ever) — and truly Internet-based creators on new media platforms may never qualify. — OpenMedia
[F]ormer CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein describes the Canadian content structure as a thinly-disguised employment system for persons in the film production industry.Peter Menzies

The Liberals and Bloc “Suspended Democracy”

The Liberal minority government, largely supported by the Bloc, ignored democratic protocols to force through a bill that supports a future of government censorship without protection for individual Canadians.

Let me be clear: Our government essentially suspended democracy to pass Bill C-10.

 

Not only is that an outrage, it's a dangerous slippery slope; unless the Senate corrects the course by giving C-10 the scrutiny and attention it was denied in the House of Commons, even more dangerous future online censorship legislation could be rammed through in this way without democratic process.

 

That's a horrifying thought. — OpenMedia

The Senate Can Still Stop Bill C-10

The Senate has already moved to pass the second reading of this dangerous bill in spite of comments by one of Canada's leading authors (he has won the Governor General's Award for both fiction and non-fiction, the Giller Prize, and is a member of the Order of Canada):

I don't think this bill needs amendments. It needs a stake through the heart. — Sen. David Adams Richards

Email the Senate to give Canada a REAL democratic examination of Bill C-10!

Regulating the Internet Like Cable TV

Bill C-10 ignores the fact that everyone could simultaneously watch different content on an open Internet. Instead, it seeks to censor the Internet.

So here and now, precisely where does Canada find the legal authority, the moral right and, most importantly, the practical power to regulate the content of international streaming services that are not broadcast over Canadian airwaves? What is the legal nexus to regulate or curate programming from international companies?

 

In a borderless digital world, should Canadian consumers be free to choose to watch whatever they like from around the world without government interference? Or should companies that operate in Canada and take money from Canadian customers be subject to Canadian regulation? That is the fundamental question at the heart of Bill C-10.

 

Does it even make sense to try to regulate the internet? Are we trying to impose a cookie-cutter model from the 1970s on a quicksilver medium that defies walls, barriers and national borders? — Sen. Paula Simons

CRTC Unsuitable to Monitor Bill C-10

Bill C-10 is giving the CRTC the power to control what ordinary Canadians are posting without any oversight. The CRTC is an unsuitable body for such authority.

As for the role of public participation in general, it's true the CRTC holds hearings and invites public comment. The reality, unfortunately, is the general public's involvement often seems relatively minor, given little weight in the decisions that are finally issued. — Monica Auer

Stop C-10: NO CRTC regulation of user speech. Email the Senate.

The Internet is Not Cable TV

When cable TV emerged, there were only so many channels and so many hours in the day available for scheduled programming.

Canadian content rules were put in place to ensure that Canadian TV wasn't overwhelmed with cheaper U.S. productions. Unfortunately program quality was never part of the criteria. Schitt's Creek is one of the few exceptions.

Instead, CanCon rules recognized documentaries on the American Civil War and Ghandi, but not a program based upon Canadian Margaret Atwood's novel, The Handmaid's Tale successfully running on Hulu.

It isn't CanCon that is creating massive international online audiences — it is those individuals that have used the power of blogs and podcasts to generate massive audiences, some that dwarf even sports team fan bases.

This is what irks traditional media, leading to demands to place those successful individuals under the umbrella of the CRTC where they will fund the big Canadian media giants (while being ineligible themselves).

Profits Before People

Now Canada's big three telecoms want to force the same control onto the Internet as exists on cable TV — and the government is going along with it.

Not only are those rules convoluted and esoteric, but make no sense in an online streaming world where what you choose to watch doesn't prevent anyone else from watching what they want.

Netflix Already Provides Canadian Content

There is more Canadian content available on Netflix than cable operators would have you (or the government) believe. All you have to do is enter “Canadian” into the search feature.

Despite the absence of regulatory requirements, Netflix has emerged as one of the leading backers of Canadian content, reporting that it commissioned hundreds of millions of dollars in original programming in Canada…. In fact, Netflix says that Canada now ranks as one of its top three locations worldwide for original productions. Given that the company spends billions each year on content, the activity in Canada is likely larger than all but a handful of regulated sources. — Michael Geist

Netflix Threatens Profitability

Rather than change to suit the current technology, telecoms are calling on the government to regulate the Internet just like cable TV.

Netflix threatens their TV subscriber base because their service lacks viewable content unless you're a news or sports junkie. Fixed timetables cannot compete with choice in your viewing time combined with program selection nor allow bing-watching of a series.

Big Media Wants to Control What You See and Watch

Big media wants to make the Internet a two-tiered system with emphasis on their products. Third-party sites big media doesn't control will be slower. It's already happening:

If people were getting what they want on cable TV, Netflix wouldn't be a threat.

Instead, Canada's big three would rather tax your choice of Netflix, slow down your connection to Netflix or simply not provide access at all.

Canadians Overcharged

Canadians already pay some of the highest rates in the world for Internet access both at home and for their cellular phones.

Wireless costs in Canada are out of line (thanks CRTC).

A 2020 report from Finland-based telecom research firm Rewheel found that Telus, Bell, and Rogers ranked 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most expensive amongst 168 wireless carriers operating in 48 countries around the world. — OpenMedia
Prior to the pandemic, Canadian internet and wireless prices were routinely found to be high by international standards — in some cases, among the highest in the world. This has only worsened during the current crisis, as many Canadians have been hit by price increases while having to conduct virtually every aspect of daily life online.
Day of Action for Affordable Internet

Check out new wireless plans that offer more for less. You may have to change carriers to get those deals — most are not advertised.

One-in-five Canadians cannot afford Internet or TV services.

The big three telecoms have the ear of the CRTC which should be there to protect Canadians, not enrich these companies which are already protected from foreign competition and enjoy 45% profit margins.

5 Times the Rate of Inflation

A CRTC look at cost and accessibility noted that Internet fees in Canada have increased at five times the rate of inflation.

You Need to Take Action

OpenMedia is one of the most important organizations representing the interests of ordinary Canadians.

Return to Top

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality

The Internet was designed as a neutral platform for open, unrestricted access to the data we wanted to obtain. It allowed us allowed us to choose what we watched and when we watched it.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality means that all data is treated equally — all sites and services on the Internet have an equal footing.

We need the Internet to be fast, cheap, neutral, and accessible everywhere. — Larry Lessig

Just Like Electricity

The plug in the wall doesn't ask what you're using it for. It simply serves electricity.

We need electronic data to be served neutrally, just as electricity is.

Imagine if your electric plugs only worked with certain brands or types of devices or charged extra if you bought the device from another vendor.

Net Neutrality is the Internet equivalent — it delivers the site(s) you request without any extra fees or censorship.

You should care because net neutrality is about way more than packets of data — it affects competition, innovation, speech online, and user choice.

 

Losing net neutrality would ultimately mean you have fewer choices for content, applications, and services online, in ways we can't possibly imagine today. — Mozilla

No site is artificially slowed or sped up. There is no fast lane for privileged services such as free access to a particular music or movie service ONLY if you're using that ISP's services.

Facebook and Netflix emerged in this non-restrictive environment but the current plans to restrict net neutrality would never allow any realistic future competition.

Net neutrality is a simple concept that ends up being very politically complicated. It's the idea that your internet service provider (ISP) — whether that's Comcast, Verizon, or someone else — shouldn't have the ability to pick and choose which service or content you can see, or make sites pay to have their content load quickly. — Mozilla Blog
Neutrality deals with whether companies will be allowed to build more toll booths on the road. Net Neutrality is the best way to insure that no one is in control of the flow of information. — David Mengert
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers providing consumer connection to the Internet should treat all data on the internet the same, not giving specific advantages or penalties in access by user, content, website, platform, or application. — Mozilla

Government seems to have the ear of the huge mega-corporations, not the people they are supposed to represent.

Tim Berners-Lee, known as the inventor of the Internet, describes the problem:

Over the past 12 months, I've become increasingly worried about three new trends, which I believe we must tackle in order for the web to fulfill its true potential as a tool which serves all of humanity.

He cited compromised personal data; fake news that he says has “spread like wildfire;” and the lack of regulation in political advertising, which he says threatens democracy.

U.S. Already Seeing the Results

To understand the dangers of a Net Neutrality-free Internet, one has only to look to our south.

The US voted to kill off net neutrality on December 14th 2017 in spite of overwhelming support for net neutrality by U.S. citizens.

The ISPs in the US are taking full advantage of the repeal of Net Neutrality.

 

A new research study proved that video streaming has been throttled across the board since the repeal.

You Need to Take Action

Since governments are listening only to big media, you need to step up and take an active part if you want to see net neutrality remain.

Change Your Browser

The browser you choose and the page that you make your "home" page make a great deal of difference.

The Firefox Browser has built in tracking protection. That makes it harder for politicians, advertisers, and disinformation disseminators to find you. And with the free Facebook container extension, you can isolate your Facebook session from everything else you do online. More privacy means more democracy. — IRL: Democracy and the Internet

There are more serious issues than familiarity when choosing a browser.

79% of Web searches are done through Google. Chrome, now claims 62% of browser market share. — 2017 Mozilla Blog

This Google monopoly now threatens the future of the open Web.

An Open Internet Promotes Innovation

Most of today's big Internet companies wouldn't exist today without a free and open Internet. Startups are in no position to compete with established Fortune 500 companies for limited bandwidth.

Fund Those Working for an Open Internet

Consider funding the organizations working to support a free and open Internet.

  • OpenMedia works directly to educate people about these issues and to influence those that can make changes.
  • Mozilla stands up for a healthy internet for all. Mozilla Firefox is the only major independent browser that protects and respects your private information.

Retain a Free & Open Internet

Police are already piling on the pressure for new laws to force you to reveal all of your digital passwords. Telecom giants are jacking up the price of Internet at 5 times the rate of inflation, and Big Media wants to use the upcoming copyright review to turn our Internet into Cable TV 2.0. — OpenMedia

Retain the current open Internet we currently experience and have taken for granted since we began to use it.

Learn More

More about Net Neutrality:

Return to top

Big Media Wants a Two-Tiered Internet

Big media wants to create a two-tiered Internet, ending Net neutrality. They want to monetize the Internet — bring the cable TV pricing concept to Internet access.

Imagine having to pay more to get “premium” access (i.e. usable speeds) for YouTube, Netflix, Skype, gaming or social media sites. The image to the right shows one possible scenario.

Smaller Players Gone

The smaller ISPs are now mostly gone, gobbled up or forced out of business by the big guys.

This move was supported by governments with the argument that they needed to be bigger to compete internationally. Now that competition is gone, prices are going up and service is declining.

These new monopolies do not protect the best interests of their customers.

Big Media Has a Conflict of Interest

Besides providing Internet access, ISP companies like Shaw, Telus, Bell, Rogers and ComCast produce content that has to compete with other services on the Web.

Bandwidth Caps

Netflix competes directly with their TV subscription services.

ISPs began forcing subscribers to pay more via bandwidth caps or experience a slowdown due to throttling of their Internet services.

This self-serving reaction indicates why ISPs that provide competing content have a conflict of interest.

Technical Reasons Cited

The big media companies often cite technical reasons for throttling competing services such as the fact that Netflix only compresses and optimizes if bandwidth is limited.

Instead of throttling services, these companies need to invest in a bigger pipeline

This is a Lame Excuse

Since 80% of the cost of an ISP is in the initial investment (not the upgrades) this is a lame excuse (and the reason that the government provided for access to smaller ISPs which the big companies have since bought out to avoid any competition).

Interestingly, these same companies can download a boatload of cable channels into your neighbourhood on a regular basis without difficulty or the need to throttle that service. Perhaps it is the competition they wish to do away with rather than anything technical.

If they provided more of what people want rather than forcing people to consume what they're currently offering they may not have that problem.

Time-shifting

Even with time-shifting technologies like PVR, scheduled broadcasts cannot compete with being able to choose what you want when you want it that streaming provides.

Traditional companies like Shaw and Telus now provide some time-shifting and the ability to watch when away from home on mobile devices.

If they are allowed to include these services without impact on bandwidth while slowing down their competitors offerings, there is a clear conflict of interest.

The Real Reasons For Throttling

The cost of getting elected today is immense and far beyond the ability of anyone but major corporations, unions and similar entities.

Money Buys Political Power

There is too much political power in the hands of a few corporations and even fewer wealthy and politically-connected individuals.

Just eight individuals, all men, own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population. — Oxfam
[T]hree people — Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett — owned as much wealth as the bottom half of Americans combined. — Vice

This leads to control of the Internet by corporations that seek much more than a reasonable profit.

Remove the Potential for Corruption

So how do you fix this?

Perhaps by limiting total annual political contributions by ANY entity to an amount affordable by most individuals (such as $300–$500).

With such a small ceiling, no corporation or union or trade group could buy significant political leverage with their donations.

Of course, this would force our political system to radically change to a more grass-roots level and would allow individuals more say and bring back those that have given up on the system.

Now, wouldn't that be an improvement!

Return to top

Bandwidth & Data Caps

Data caps are seldom found outside of Canada except on cellular networks.

As Telus and other Internet providers began to sell TV services they added Internet overage charges.

Telus said they'd never have bandwidth caps when Shaw began the practice several years ago. The introduction coincided with Telus moving into the TV services business.

Telus billed me $100 for a few texts sent to the U.S. from my wife's cellphone. Their most expensive plan was $29.95 per year. She is no longer with Telus Mobility.

More Bandwidth Possible and Affordable

Data caps have nothing to do with real costs. They have everything to do with increasing profitability.

Just like the new fees for receiving a paper bill and fees for plastic shopping bags, these costs have traditionally been included as part of providing goods and services to the customer.

While paying some of the highest rates in the world, Canadians also suffer from some of the poorest service. Upload speeds vary greatly across the country at a time when uploading information became almost as important as downloading it.

TV Viewers Face No Bandwidth Caps

I find it interesting that the same companies that charge higher access fees for high-bandwidth Internet users have never taken similar steps to meter TV services. No one receives a higher bill for binge watching sports on a Saturday afternoon.

You can watch TV all day without surcharges, but not Internet content even though both are using the same pipeline. The only difference is that the Internet provides choice — something that isn't as profitable to existing cable company structures.

CRTC: Internet a Basic Service

The CRTC has reclassified Internet as a basic service. This will change the subsidies offered from supporting copper-based telephone services (POTS) to supporting Internet access, including Internet-based phone service (VOIP) like Shaw and Skype provide.

Many Canadians no longer have a home phone, depending upon cellular phones and Skype-like services though companies like Shaw and Fido.

The CRTC (Canada's FCC) has required an affordable TV subscription option costing no more than $25 per month. Some companies have used hidden fees and other tricks to increase the actual billing rate for basic services.

Canadian Internet Tax Proposed

An Internet tax has been proposed (supposedly to get Netflix to fund Canadian content which they already do without any access to the funds provided to cable operators). British Columbia introduced that tax in their May 2021 budget.

The Liberal government added an Internet tax in Bill C-10 to help offset the declining revenues faced by Shaw, Rogers and Telus as their viewership rates decline and to “support Canadian content” despite the actual facts. The Liberals and Bloc effectively suspended democracy in order to pass this bill.

A Dying Industry

We cannot afford to prop up a dying industry (and it isn't the only one).

People need to speak out if we are to avoid being steamrolled by an industry that is bankrolled by our high cable and Internet fees.

Canadians Oppose Internet Tax

Canadians strongly oppose such a tax.

If high quality content was being produced it wouldn't need a subsidy. An example is the worldwide distribution of BBC productions.

However, they are being told that we need to level the playing field by going after the big internet companies. Actually, they are propping up Canada's big media companies and the consumer is going to pay the price, whether with increased fees or the loss of a streaming service that can no longer afford to provide content to Canada.

Content Creators Hampered

Canadian content creators are hampered by a very small domestic consumer base combined with the presence of two official languages (with French being subsidized in areas where it can't naturally compete).

Multiculturalism Subsidized

Now we're seeing multiculturism legislation generating content for minorities in the basic band of television offerings rather than as a specialized subscription basis where its economics would be tested.

Much of this sort of content has no resale value. It only gets air time because of the distorted Canadian content, multiculturism and other minority rights laws.

Sports Subsidies and Content Rules

Of course, legislating Canadian content and regional requirements has upped the cost of TV services and providers have to find profitability somewhere.

Most TV viewers don't have any say in available content other than in picking bundles.

All TV subscribers heavily subsidize the cost of sports programing. These extra costs are hidden within the basic cable rates.

Canadian TV service providers must offer channels either individually or in packages of up to 10 channels and the affordable TV package mandated by the CRTC.

TSN Not Allowed to Fail

Older Canadians will remember that TSN started off as a premium channel at $29.95 per month.

Rather than let it fail, the CRTC rolled it into the standard TV packages resulting in a monthly fee increases of $1 for everyone — whether they wanted TSN or not.

The inflated cost today is much more per cable subscriber.

Community Broadband

Increased bandwidth is not only possible, but affordable. What's missing is the incentive for those controlling access.

Faster, Cheaper Internet

With the help of local governments there are movements in Canada to bring faster, cheaper Internet to your community.

There are already Canadian success stories in cities including Coquitlam, BC where residents on the network are able to access unlimited 10 Mbps Internet for an incredibly low fee of $20 per month.

Banned in Rural U.S.

Several U.S. rural communities decided to take matters into their own hands and built community broadband in areas the big ISPs refused to service.

The response? The ISPs lobbied to ban community broadband in 19 U.S. states, calling it “unfair competition.”

Remember, this was to provide broadband service in areas the commercial operators said was unprofitable.

The legislation protected huge profits by limiting bandwidth and competition.

 

Stop The Rogers-Shaw Deal!

Stop Rogers from buying Shaw. Follow to take action.

Sign the petition.

We already pay too much. Telecoms are protected from outside competition.

[H]ealthy competition in the broadband sector is key to ensuring that all Canadians can benefit from all that the internet brings to our lives.
Competition Bureau

Affordable Internet and wireless prices? Not if Rogers buys Shaw. Stop this dangerous sale before it's too late.

Digital Rights (DRM)

As music and movies have moved from CDs and DVDs to digital they are easier to copy.

DRM is intended to stop piracy while not interfering with legal use.

…trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet.
— Bruce Schneier

Unlike a physical book or CD you are restricted in your use of digital media including your ability to lend or sell it.

DRM prevents you from doing what would be possible without it.
Defective by Design

Evidence Suppressed

These companies have become much more aggressive in pursuing protective technologies, claiming millions of dollars in lost sales.

The EU suppressed a 300-page study that found piracy doesn't harm sales.

Not everyone that downloads a pirated song or movie would have paid for it.

DRM Affects Privacy

If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed. — Peter Lee, Disney

Kindle Tracks You

One example of how DRM can affect your privacy is Amazon's tracking of where you are in a Kindle ebook.

By selling texts restricted by DRM, Amazon ensnares readers, controls their access to their books, and infringes on their freedoms.
Defective by Design.

Hiding Failures and Fraud

This openness is one-sided.

Companies used DRM to prosecute those that would reveal shortcomings, vulnerabilities or outright fraud.

DRM is wrapped up in a layer of legal entanglements (notably section 1201 of America's Digital Millennium Copyright Act), which allow similar kinds of anticompetitive and ugly practices that make net neutrality so important.
Tim Wu

Volkswagen Emissions

The Volkswagen emissions scandal is only one example.

Volkswagen gamed the computers in their cars to misreport the actual emissions output so that they appeared cleaner than they actually were. DRM ensured that no one dared to test their results.

We cannot afford to continue to allow companies to threaten our security in order to save face when they fail.

Web Browsers & DRM

Our browsers have become integrated into areas like medical devices and lives could depend upon revealing vulnerabilities and exploits.

DRM has been used to keep these vulnerabilities secret.

As content moved from plugins to HTML5-based content, Netflix and Motion Picture Association of America pushed the W3C to incorporate DRM.

Profitability at Your Expense

DRM places unreasonable restrictions that sacrifice your privacy to ensure corporate profit.

Your privacy is ignored and your ability to control your own information is sacrificed in the pursuit of this goal.

Re-Purchasing Content

You are paying for the content, yet DRM ensures that the consumer pays over and over for the same product simply because technology changes.

  • You may own the DVD but can't legally copy it to view on your iPad.
  • You may own the LP but need to re-purchase the CD.
  • If you scratch the DVD, you can't get a replacement or exchange, even at a discount.

With the move from CDs and DVDs to online streaming, the DRM was incorporated into your browser to ensure corporations retained control of your viewing and listening habits.

Corporate vs Individual Rights

Legislation enhances the protection for media giants, often overshadowing the rights of both creators (such as writers, musicians, artists, etc.) and end users.

This concentrates control over production and distribution of media, giving DRM peddlers the power to carry out massive digital book burnings and conduct large scale surveillance over people's media viewing habits.
Defective by Design

Increased Corporate Control

TPP and other trade agreements increased corporate control worldwide.

DMCA Abuses

Too often the Digital Millennium Act (DMCA) has been used to stiffle legitimate uses.

  • John Deere used it to prevent farmers from repairing their own equipment.
  • Volkswagen used it to hide faked emission control data.
  • Researchers are prevented from discovering security flaws in software.
It's certainly easier to implement bad security and make it illegal for anyone to notice than it is to implement good security.
— Bruce Schneier

DRM Fallout

Some users report losing copies of their own music when unsubscribing from the Apple Music service after Apple changed their DRM policies.

I also experienced this removal of music NOT sourced though Apple Music.

As a result seldom listen to music on my iPhone or use iTunes anymore. It was simply too much trouble to restore the music I was actually listening to.

VLC Player is DRM-free and allows me to watch without being watched.

Learn More

More about DRM and related issues:

  • Defective by Design is a grass roots organization working together to eliminate DRM as a threat to innovation in media, the privacy of readers, and freedom for computer users.
  • DRM Repeat offenders include Microsoft, Netflix, Sony and Amazon's Kindle.
  • The Free Software Foundation is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free software users.

Related Resources

Related resources on this site:

or check the resources index.


If these pages helped you,
buy me a coffee!


 

Return to top
RussHarvey.bc.ca/resources/internet-at-risk.html
Updated: July 22, 2021