The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has a good site on internet accessibility and net neutrality. The latest news is that they’ve sent a letter to Industry Minister Jim Prentice over his government’s lack of action on the protection of net neutrality. The letter was accompanied by a report (pdf) written in July 2007 on Internet Accessibility and Net Neutrality.
Source: BCLA-IPC listserv
Maybe I’m a little late on this, but last week, two congressman introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (a bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.) . Here are some sections of the bill:
With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall—
(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet;
(2) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any device to the network of such broadband service provider, only if such device does not physically damage or substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers;
(3) provide and make available to each user information about such user’s access to the Internet, and the speed, nature, and limitations of such user’s broadband service;
(4) enable any content, application, or service made available via the Internet to be offered, provided, or posted on a basis that—
- (A) is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, including with respect to quality of service, access, speed, and bandwidth;
- (B) is at least equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth that such broadband service provider offers to affiliated content, applications, or services made available via the public Internet into the net work of such broadband service provider; and
- (C) does not impose a charge on the basis of the type of content, applications, or services made available via the Internet into the network of such broadband service provider;
(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization; and
(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this section.
More info from the Washington Post
A colleague has informed me that Robert McChesney’s new book “Communication Revolution - Critical Junctures and the Future of Media” has been reviewed in Countercurrents. On Net Neutrality, the reviewer states:
Central to [media reform] is an emerging “classic struggle” very much in play but with no certain outcome over the most important issue of all - the future of the Internet and battle for Net Neutrality. That fight must be won, doing it is daunting, and the opposition is powerful media and other monied interests with friends in high places matched against others supporting the public. McChesney calls Net Neutrality “a defining issue for this critical juncture (and) the First Amendment for the Internet.” Media reform activists have drawn a line in the sand. This corporate-free and open space must be defended at all costs. The stakes are that high.
- DD
Newsfactor.com reports that the FCC has sent letters of inquiry to Comcast regarding complaints about Internet Filtering. The complaints came about in the Fall of 2007 when the Associated Press reported that
Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online [ex. by using BitTorrent technology], a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
Proof of interference was divulged in a report published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
More information about Net Neutrality:
Save the Internet Coalition
What is net neutrality.ca
- DD
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has put up over 13 000 segments going back to 1999. That’s pretty cool…or at least it would be if I could get any of the videos in the archives to load.
Maybe the site’s just being hammered with traffic because it’s so new. But it almost makes you wish some of these media giant properties would skip the proprietary site designs and media players and just put it all up on YouTube instead.
[Edit: Just saw that there’s also a proposal to make all of the books shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize available for free online as well. Following up the Radiohead announcement, that now makes the announcement of a major music, TV and book release for free online within a very short period of time. So, the big question is - which will be the first big Hollywood movie to follow this model? We should all avoid buzzwords where ever possible but this really does feel like a paradigm shift. Oh, and the commentator I linked to about Radiohead says they won’t make any money but the goodwill they recieve from fans for the move will pay off in the long term. But another commentator speculates that Radiohead have made $10 million already, more than they made from their last three albums combined. The truth is probably somewhere between these two extremes but I’d lean towards this being a very profitable move for the band.)
(via MetaFilter)
- JH
Net Neutrality:
A Public Discussion on the Future of the Internet in Canada
Date and Location:
February 6, 2007 , 7 pm
Admission: Free
Ottawa Public Library Auditorium
120 Metcalfe St.
Moderated by:
Pippa Lawson: Executive Director, Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa
Panelists:
Event:
Please join us for a an important public discussion on the future of the Internet in Canada. Network neutrality recently became a major issue in the United States when telecommunications companies issued public statements asking for the ability to charge Internet content-providers for preferential access to Internet users. That meant that big corporations, especially media conglomerates, would get to Internet users fastest while smaller ones, which would be unable to pay the “tolls”, would be left trailing. Meanwhile, Internet users could be restricted from using certain applications, and would likely have to pay more to access content of providers that weren’t part of the telecommunications company’s exclusivity deals.
Net neutrality has been an issue in Canada for at least two years, but the release in March 2006 of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel’s Final Report renewed both corporate and public interest in the topic. In the United States, net neutrality is currently on hold as legislators debate the issue; in Canada, the federal government is considering major changes to telecommunications regulation and its commitment to network neutrality is uncertain - hence the need for public debate before more decisions are made.
We are also inviting politicians to attend this panel discussion, and we hope that with a good turnout, our policy-makers will understand what an important issue network neutrality is for Canadians, and that the separation of telecommunications companies from content providers is in the interest of all Internet users. While the Internet has largely been managed as a democratic commons there are hints that it can become a privately-controlled medium. The 2005 move by Telus to block customer access to the “Voices For Change” Telecommunications Workers Union website is but one example of a private-sector threat to network neutrality.
For more information on the topic, please visit the following websites and online news articles:
If you are unable to attend, please note that a video of the event will be made publicly available.
To follow up on our last post on net neutrality, here is a good intro video called “Human Lobotomy.” In the vid, Sir Tim Berners-Lee (founder of the Internet) gives this definition of network neutrality: “if I pay to connect to the net, with a given quality of service — and if you pay to connect to the net with the same or a higher quality of service — then you and I can communicate across the net with that quality of service.”
For more resources, please check out our previous post on the topic or visit neutrality.ca. Thanks Danielle!
-SIO
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