This is always the main problem with these things. It sounds like a small and maybe even could be argued as a "fair" set of regulations/laws to propose, but the problem is that it opens up the box and often the line of where it stops starts to get fuzzy. Rogers and Bell are ISPs, cable/satelite providers, phone providers, control most of the major news networks (on radio and tv) as well as produce a lot of content and own streaming services.

They are overall incredibly biased against illegal content online and have a huge stake in that. I don't think it makes sense for the same company who produces content and controls a lot of the media to also be the ones blocking "pirate" content.

I wonder how this works with the ISP's that buy internet access wholesale from Bell and Rogers. For example my ISP is pretty small and I don't even think they forward those intimidating letters from production studios nor do I think they would care to enforce random IPs/sites to block. They are just too small of an operation to care/worry about this and wasting money on it. So will Bell and Rogers end up just blocking it on their end and not even giving these wholesale buyers a chance to manage the network?

Overall I really do not trust Bell or Rogers and I do not trust them with blocking things. I really do not want to have to end up using a VPN connected to another country all the time simply to avoid blockades all over the web.

Overall I feel like this just opens the box to further blocking of things not specifically piracy related. You give the government/ISP's a CM and they are going to ask for a meter later.