Well. The issue of net neutrality has finally docked in the Canadian media with stories as reported by Kyenta. What is net neutrality? It’s basically federal legislation that prevents telecommunications companies (like Bell, Rogers, and Telus) from filtering content from the Internet. As Michael Geist says in a blog posting,
In recent months, Internet service providers in Canada and the U.S. have begun to sketch out a vision of a two-tiered Internet in which they charge websites to deliver their content to consumers, limit consumers’ ability to use certain applications, and reserve the right to charge premiums for the use of services such as Internet telephony.
Net neutrality prevents that kind of corporate freedom, and such legislation made its rounds in the United States where telecommunications giants essentially prevented its becoming law. According to The Canadian Press, “U.S. legislators are currently reviewing their decision to scrap the law … big U.S. telecom companies are on their best behaviour as they await a final green light.” And now it’s coming to Canada.
Usually when we hear about a public policy issue on the news and a particular stance is supported by a corporation or industry spokesperson, we can be pretty sure that the public interest lies somewhere opposite anything the spokes say. Net neutrality is a bit more complicated, though, because one industry group (content providers like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.) claims to support net neutrality legislation and another (telecommunications companies and internet service providers or ISPs, like Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc.) opposes it.
ISPs (the telecoms) want to be able to be the Internet’s content gatekeepers. As Ben Scott (of Free Press and SavetheInternet.com) told the CP, telecoms “say, `Well, we own the wires and instead of treating all bits alike in a non-discriminatory fashion, we’re going to set up special deals and if you [content providers like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.] have the money, you can pay us to make your websites go much faster. And you can pay us to set up an exclusive deal where your website goes very fast and your competitor’s doesn’t.’ â€
Content providers, then, support net neutrality because it would prevent ISPs from charging them for preferential access to customers (e.g. if you want faster access to customers, you have to pay us). The content providers are calling foul, claiming that without net neutrality laws, the Internet will belong to the wealthiest corporations who can buy the prime bandwidth from the telecommunications corporations. Indeed, we might ask - if people have to pay to be seen, where will that leave the CBC or alternative media? Or blogs like this one? Or anti-poverty groups? And in case you think websites can’t be blocked, think again. FreePress reports:
…already there’s been extensive documentation of abuse of power from network owners. For example, in 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked DSL customers from using its rival Vonage’s Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) services. In 2005, the Canadian telecom corporation Telus blocked its users from accessing a pro-union website during a Telus labor dispute. And in 2006, Time Warner blocked a mass-email campaign from its customers that was critical of AOL’s proposed tiered email system.
Bad, right? Right. Here are some sources to check out (in addition to the ones listed in this posting):
* The final report of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel (especially the parts about “unjust discrimination”). The TPRP was mandated to conduct a review of the Canadian telecommunications framework (Michael Geist provides a fairly nuanced analysis).
* The Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum has an excellent page on net neutrality.
* Kevin McArthur from StormTide Digital Studios (in Duncan BC) has created this website on net neutrality.
* Free Press and SavetheInternet.com
* And Heiko has already gone through the world and annotated all the good Net Neutrality vids out there. Thank-you!
Three last thoughts:
One. I feel so lucky to live in Ottawa right now - there’s a not-for-profit Internet service provider here called the National Capital Freenet. And the public library happens to be a partner in the project. Therefore, a little less money goes to corporations trying to make a buck.
Two. I dashed onto YouTube to pull up Jon Stewart’s Net Neutrality video because it’s very very funny and clever - only to find that the main one had been pulled off the site “due to copyright infringment.” I wonder when that happened: pre or post Google-Takeover? And is that a sign of things to come? Anyhow - this is now drifting into the Off-Topic of the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, so I will end by saying that a lesser-viewed version of the Jon Stewart episode is here until further notice. If it goes, too, we may have to start a new YouTube (maybe YouTubeTwo?).
Three. E-mails to the Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier and Minister of Canadian Heritage Bev Oda anyone? And pop your name onto the petition at www.neutrality.ca (and please follow the other instructions for action given there).
Four. Thank-you, Kyenta, for the heads’ up on this one. We’re looking forward to hearing what the CIPPIC tells you…
-SIO