the internet: accessibility & net neutralityneutrality. simply put network neutrality, commonly...

The Internet:accessibility &net neutrality

BACKGROUNDERBACKGROUNDERBACKGROUNDERBACKGROUNDERBACKGROUNDER

June 2007

2National Union RESEARCHwww.nupge.ca

IT IS NOT an exaggeration to saythe Internet has brought wide-ranging changes to the way thatmillions of Canadians – andhundreds of millions of theworld’s people – work, shop,communicate and relax. Indeedmany feel that we are only in thefirst wave of changes to our socialstructure that will be brought bythe Internet.

The Internet is an incredibletool. As the technologydevelops there are more andmore possibilities opened upfor its use. We now havegenerations of people whohave grown up in the digitalage. The Internet is not simplyan interesting toy to thesechildren of the Internetrevolution – it is a continuallyused fact of life.

Access to the Internet israpidly becoming a necessityfor many in the developed anddeveloping world. In a veryreal way access to the Internet,in particular the high-speedbroadband capability, isbecoming yet another definingfactor between the world’shaves and have-nots.

This digital divide existsboth between countries andwithin a country. It is not onlybetween the have countries ofthe developed world and thehave-nots of the developing

3 National Union RESEARCHwww.nupge.ca

world but between rich andpoor, urban and rural inCanada.

Many are surprised to hearthat communities a mereforty minutes outside of amajor urban area often donot have access to broadbandInternet. Even within asingle community someneighbourhoods – somestreets – will have broadbandaccess while others don’t.

These disparities in accesshave serious implications forour economy and people’sequality.

It can be a realdisadvantage for the poorand the rural when comparedto the rich and the urban.

Children in schools orcommunities withoutbroadband access do notreceive the same educationor range of opportunities asthose who do have access.

Workers and businesseswithout broadband access arelimited in the services andwork that they can do.

Fundamentally, access tobroadband Internet servicesis an issue about democraticgovernance. Is thisprofoundly important toolgoing to be available to allcitizens or will it remain atool of the world’s elites?

But connectivity is not theonly threat to Internetdemocracy. Not only are wegrappling with the question ofdisparity in access tobroadband but also the creationof unequal access to Internetcontent.

One of the great appeals ofthe Internet and the web hasbeen the equality of accessprovided to users. With theproper hardware and softwaremost people can both accessand provide content over theweb. The smallest website orweb log (blog) has as muchchance of being seen as thelargest corporation’s website. Infact, some small and creativewebsites have repeatedlyshown themselves able to reachmillions of people moreeffectively than those createdby the rich and powerful.

Some corporations want tolimit this great advantage of theInternet. They want to create atwo-tier Internet that wouldallow them to slow or evenblock content that is not intheir corporate interests.

Communications technologieshave been developing at a rapidpace. The expansion of theInternet into homes andbusinesses has grown at anunprecedented rate from theearly days of email. So quickly


has the technology and possibleuses grown that manygovernments have struggled tokeep up with developments.There are many exampleswhere consumer protection andpublic safety have laggedbehind technological advances.

This issue is called NetworkNeutrality.

Simply put NetworkNeutrality, commonly called netneutrality, is the “principle thatall Internet traffic be treatedequally, regardless of origin,destination, or applicationtype.”1

Many advocates for netneutrality in the United Statesrefer to it as the FirstAmendment of the Internet,making an analogy to theprotection of free speechenshrined in the USConstitution.

Major telecommunicationscorporations, also calledInternet Service Providers(ISPs), are involved in a struggleover how and what Internettraffic will pass through thevarious Internet networks.

But this is not an issue solelyabout corporate profit or thegrowing power oftelecommunications companies– it is also about the rights ofcitizens to exercise control overone of the greatest innovationsin communications history.


The question is whethertelecom companies should beable to favour some Internetsites over others by chargingdifferent rates to differentcustomers and making somesites easier to access thanothers. Should these companiessucceed, it will undermine theInternet’s level playing field andwill make it much moredifficult for the small andindependent voice to be heardon the web.

The origins of theInternet and the roleof government andthe public sector

The great myth of theInternet is that it was createdby a small number of brilliantentrepreneurs and businesses.These hi-tech adventurers tooksmall ideas and ran with them– making themselves rich whilechanging communications.

There is no doubt that manyof these individuals were, orare, brilliant. It is also true thatsome of the developments onthe Internet were initiated bysomeone with an idea and avision. And, it is undeniablethat a small number of

individuals became verywealthy through the net.

Unfortunately, this narrativeleaves out the vital role thatsuccessive governments andthe public sector, in Canada andaround the world, played infunding and supporting thedevelopment of the web.

The most obvious place tostart is the invention of theInternet. Many are not awarethat the Internet largelyoriginated in the researchconducted in post-secondaryinstitutions and the military.The desire for fast and reliablemethods of communication ledthese publicly funded bodies toinvestigate the possibility oftransmitting data fromcomputer to computer througha network of cables and wires.

Then there are the “pipes”through which Internet trafficflows. In Canada, and most ofthe world, the firsttelecommunications steps weretaken by government.

Realizing that the ability forcitizens to communicate witheach other across largedistances was important fornation building, mostgovernments embarked onambitious projects ofexpanding and improvingelectronic communicationsnetworks. The fact that there is


a network of cables andtelephone wires connectinginto most homes in Canada isthanks to the commitment ofcitizens and their electedleaders to make it happen.

In Canada, two of the largesttelecommunicationscompanies, Bell Canada andTelus, have significantlybenefited from governmentinvestment and intervention.

For example, the BellTelephone Company of CanadaLtd., founded in 1880, wasgranted a monopoly on longdistance telephone service.The rapid growth and currentmarket position of Bell Canadais directly related to thisgovernment granted monopoly.

Telus has its origins in theAlberta GovernmentTelephones (AGT), created bythe provincial government in1907, and charged withexpanding and improvingtelephone services for theprovince. The City ofEdmonton had its ownmunicipally owned telephoneutility that was eventuallybought by Telus as was BCTel,the telephone companygranted a monopoly by thegovernment of BritishColumbia.

In addition, the province ofSaskatchewan continues to


have a publicly ownedtelecommunications company.

While not without problems,it was through governmentsupport that these bodiesmanaged to develop andexpand telephone servicesinto almost every home in thecountry.

And this commitment byvarious levels of government toensuring that the nation’scitizens have access tocommunications is maintained.Provincial and federalgovernments continue to investin developing access tobroadband services into ruraland remote communities. Anumber of Canadianmunicipalities and cities areembarking on developingpublicly owned and maintainedwireless Internet access for thecitizens.

Similarly, public sectorutilities play an important rolein the maintenance of thetelecommunications network.For example, the overwhelmingmajority of telephone wires andcables are carried over publiclyowned and maintained hydropoles situated on public land.This is largely rent free orwithout charge for repairs orupgrading.

So, as a quick summary:

• the creation of the Internet,on campus and in themilitary, receivedconsiderable financialsupport from all levels ofgovernment;

• most of thetelecommunicationscompanies that dominatethe sector have their originsin public corporationscreated by governments tosee services expanded intothe homes of most of itscitizens;

• the pipes through whichthis communication flowswas built by public agenciesand in most instancescontinues to be maintainedby these agencies;

• this infrastructure issituated on publicly ownedland; and

• many governmentscontinue to provide taxincentives and supports tocompanies that promise toexpand service into ruraland remote communities.Past Canadian governments

have strongly supported thedevelopment of the Internet asa tool for its citizens. This mustcontinue. Corporations mustnot be allowed to back awayfrom this commitment to thepublic —to the common good.


ConnectivityBridging thedigital divide

It is important to start bydefining a basic term—broadband. The Canadiangovernment defines it this way:“Broadband, or high-capacityInternet, is used to send or viewlarge amounts of information,including live video and audio,via the Internet. This can bringpeople in different regionscloser together – from a doctorin Vancouver and a patient inTofino to a grade three class inCorner Brook and a sciencecentre in Halifax. While thiswould be next to impossiblewith Internet access over aregular dial-up phone line,broadband provides the supportneeded to view or participate inthese opportunities.”2

Access to broadband Internetis then different from beingable to access the Internetthrough a dial-up method. Thisis an important distinction toremember. For example, whileresearch suggests that 67.8% ofCanadians have access to theInternet – less than a quarter ofthem do so through abroadband connection.

In early 2007 the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) released a


report on broadband statistics asof December 2006.3 The OECDis an international bodycomprised of 30 membercountries that are among themost developed economies ofthe world. Its researchprovides a means forcomparing Canada’s access tobroadband services to othercountries.

The OECD report notes that23.8% of Canadians aresubscribed to broadbandservices – placing Canada nearthe top of the G7 countries interms of broadbandpenetration.

Broadband subscribers per100 Inhabitants:

Denmark 31.9Netherlands 31.8Iceland 29.7South Korea 29.1Switzerland 28.5Norway 27.5Finland 27.2Sweden 26.0Canada 23.8Belgium 22.5Some in government saw this

as a cause for celebration.However, upon closerexamination of the data we finda more complicated, andworrisome, picture.

What this figure does notshow is that Canada isdropping in its ranking of

broadband penetration whencompared to other OECDcountries. We see that in termsof broadband penetration, inOECD countries, in:

2003 Canada ranked second2004 Canada ranked fifth2005 Canada ranked eighth2006 Canada ranked ninthGiven this trend we can safely

say that Canada will drop out ofthe top 10 by the end of 2008.

Another ranking that is farless flattering is the OECD’scomparison of growth rate ofbroadband coverage. Canada,with a growth rate of 13%, isranked 29th out of 30 countries.Well behind:

Greece 228%Poland 187%Slovak Republic 128%Hungary 89%Ireland 87%Turkey 81%New Zealand 73%Czech Republic 66%Mexico 59%Australia 39%So, Canada is falling behind

other OECD countries both inthe percentage of its citizenswith broadband access and therate at which that access isgrowing.

This is a sad state of affairs.Canada was once recognized asa world leader in developingaccess to the Internet for its


citizens. We were the firstcountry in the world to connectevery school from coast to coastto the Internet. Shortlyafterwards a broadband taskforce was created with thepurpose of developing astrategy to ensure that allCanadians had access to high-speed networks.

Michael Geist, the CanadaResearch Chair of Internet andE-commerce Law at theUniversity of Ottawa, thinksthat Canada’s ranking in theOECD report is:

“a pretty abysmal showing.Far from being an Internetleader, Canada is rapidlybecoming a second tiercountry in terms ofbroadband penetration withlimited broadbandcompetition, hundreds ofthousands of people with nohope of any broadbandaccess, rising prices, andmore examples of theviolation of net neutralityprinciples than any othercountry in the world.”4

As we have seen, some initialpromising steps have faltered.The fact is that whengovernments prioritized andacted to expand access tobroadband Internet there wasprogress. As federalgovernments choose to leave


the expansion and operation ofbroadband services solely to theprivate sector we see a declinein growth.

The TelecommunicationsPolicy Review Panel closelylooked at whether the Canadianmarketplace could be reliedupon to ensure that allCanadians have broadbandaccess. Their conclusion wasthat:

“there is not a viable businesscase in all areas and that,without some form ofgovernment intervention, asignificant number ofCanadians will remainwithout broadband access.The study concludes thatafter taking into account themaximum likely level of“sustainable” private sectorinvestment, approximately1.5 million people – about 5%of Canada’s population – willremain unserved.”5

Our federal governmentneeds to develop andimplement a broadbandstrategy that will guaranteeequality of access for allCanadians.

Whether or not the federalgovernment acts on this matterwill have profound implicationsfor communities in Canada.Research conducted on theeconomic impact of broadband

access in two remote and ruralcommunities in BritishColumbia highlights theimportance to business.

The research was conductedon the Peace Region InternetSociety (PRIS) network in thePeace River region of north-eastern British Columbia andthe China Creek ISP in theSouth Similkameen region ofsouth-central British Columbia.The study’s key findings werethat:• Over 80% of all business

respondents reported thatabsence of broadband wouldaffect their businessesnegatively. Over 18% of allbusiness respondents statedthey could not operate theirbusinesses withoutbroadband.

• 62% of pre-existingbusinesses indicated thattheir productivity has goneup as a result of broadband,with a majority indicating anincrease in productivity ofmore than 10%.

• Many businesses reportedincreases in pre-tax incomeand/or decreases in operatingcosts due to broadbandconnectivity.

• 15% of residential broadbandsubscribers reported thattheir household income hasincreased and 39% reported


that their household expenseshave decreased due toresidential broadbandconnectivity.

• Almost 75% of residentialrespondents reported thatbroadband connectivity attheir place of work wascritical for one or moremembers of their household. 6

The authors of the reportconcluded that “withoutbroadband access businesses inremote and rural communitieswould be at a competitivedisadvantage.” Or perhaps thetitle of the report says it best—You Snooze, You Lose.

Similar results have beenfound in other studies. Toquote from a study on theimpacts of broadband inChurchill, Manitoba andParrsboro, Nova Scotia:

“there is a ‘digital divide’ inCanada that separatesbusinesses in rural andremote communities frombeing able to play on an evenfield with their competitorsthat have access tobroadband. Whether it is thefamily farm that cannot dealwith e-government files andforms or the B&B that losescustomers because there isno broadband access forthem or the tour company ortheatre that cannot sell


efficiently over the Internet,all are kept from operating asproductively as they mightotherwise.”7

While the economic impactcan be significant so can thecultural and educationaldisadvantages for thosewithout broadband access:• Disparities in broadband

access mean that somechildren do not receive thesame quality of education asmany of their counterparts.

• Communities and regionswithout broadband accessface losing residents to thoseareas that do.

• In an increasingly globalculture, artists and writersneed broadband access toshare their work with others.Some provincial governments

are starting to act on theseissues. The government ofSaskatchewan has embarked ona process of expanding andupgrading the province’sinformation technologyinfrastructure as a means toretain young workers.

Saskatchewan Premier LorneCalvert announced the programby saying that this “excitinginitiative is just one more wayof enhancing the progressiveimage of Saskatchewan’scommunities as the bestplace for young people to

work, live and build strongfutures.”

Part of the program is tooffer free wireless high-speed Internet services in anumber of communitiesacross the province. Thegovernment press releasefurther points out that theinitiative will “help to bridgethe ‘digital divide’ byproviding no-cost Internetaccess to residents of theareas who may be unable toafford monthly rates forInternet access.”8

The Canadian territory ofNunavut has made incrediblestrides in creatingbroadband access to thecitizens of the region.Comprised of smallcommunities dispersed overa large and demandingterrain, a combination ofgovernment funding andlocal initiative has broughtbroadband access toincreasing numbers ofresidents. It can be done!

Broadband access for all ofCanada’s citizens is nolonger a luxury but anecessity. Our federalgovernment must recommitto the challenge ofexpanding broadbandcoverage to all communitiesacross the country.


Network neutralityKeeping theInternet open

Expanding access tobroadband services is at heartan issue of social justice andequality of opportunity. Butconnectivity is only part of thestruggle to bridge the digitaldivide.

The other issue is to preserveequal access to content whileon the Internet. This is theprinciple of network neutrality.

There are a number ofdefinitions of net neutralityused. The one we presentedpreviously states that networkneutrality is the:

principle that all Internettraffic be treated equally,regardless of origin,destination, or applicationtype.9

According to Timothy Karr,campaign director for FreePress, a media reformorganization and coordinatorfor SavetheInternet.com, abipartisan coalition working topreserve network neutrality:

“Net neutrality ensures thatthe public can view thesmallest blog just as easily asthe largest corporate websiteand prevents companies likeAT&T from rigging the playing


field for only the highest-paying sites and services.”10

There have been a numberof instances in Canada wheretelecommunicationscompanies have acted, or areacting, in a discriminatorymanner towards somewebsites or Internet serviceusers.

The most obvious instancesof the initial moves bytelecommunications companiestowards discriminatorytreatment of competing serviceproviders involve Internettelephony (often called Voice-over-IP or VoIP). As the majorcompanies develop Internettelephony services, some aretrying to use their networkposition to unfairlydisadvantage the competition.

Shaw, one of Canada’s largesttelecommunicationscompanies, downgrades the“quality and reliability” ofcompeting Internet-phoneservices that contact theircustomers. To quote one netneutrality advocacyorganization, Shaw is “drivingcustomers to their own phoneservices not through betterservices, but by rigging themarketplace.”11

The Quebec-basedcompany, Videotron, hasmade some indications that

they may take action againstthird party Internet telephonyproviders, going as far aslabeling Skype “parasitic”.

There have also beenexamples of companiesrestricting or limitingInternet access of specificInternet applications or webcontent.

In late 2005, Rogers largelyacknowledged that it isengaged in “packet shaping”,limiting available bandwidth,for peer-to-peer file sharingapplications – such as thepopular freely distributedBitTorrent. Some file sharingapplications, in reaction tothe packet shaping approach,introduced encryptionservices as a way to preventdetection. Rogers now simplydegrades all encryptedtraffic.

There are two seriousexisting problems withRogers’ packet shaping. First,the use of BitTorrent is legalin Canada and many artistsand corporations use theseapplications to provide theirproducts to people.

Secondly, there is growingevidence that Rogers’ packetshaping is downgrading theemail services for manyusers. For example, itappears Rogers is degrading


access to the University ofOttawa email accounts,which use encryption, ofstudents or staff who try toaccess their University emailaccounts through theirRogers connection. 12

In possibly the mostcontroversial example ofviolating network neutrality,Telus blocked its Internetcustomers from visiting thewebsite Voices for Change thatwas sympathetic to the strikingworkers of Telus, members ofthe TelecommunicationsWorkers Union. Not only didTelus cut access to the Voicesfor Change site but it alsoblocked access to 766 unrelatedwebsites that were hosted onthe same Florida based server.13

Ultimately the goal of thelarge Internet Service Providersmay not be merely the blockingof competing services orcertain websites and specificapplications. Many of thesetelecommunications companiessee even greater profits bycharging websites or servicesfor priority access tocustomers.

Chief Technology OfficerWilliam L. Smith, of the USbased BellSouth, speculatedabout charging a premium towebsites for prioritizationdownloading, allowing Yahoo to


pay to ensure that it would loadfaster than Google. BellSouthand AT&T are lobbying the USCongress for the right to createa two-tiered Internet – wheretheir own Internet serviceswould be transmitted faster andmore efficiently than those oftheir competitors.

Unfortunately, Canada’scurrent federal governmentappears unwilling to act on thematter. In March 2007,Canadian Press obtained, underthe Access to Information Act,briefing notes for IndustryMinister Maxime Bernier on theissue of network neutrality.According to Michael Geist thedocuments:

“provide a clear picture of anIndustry Minister and policymakers content to leave theissue alone, despiteacknowledging that majortelcos such as Bell and Telusare ‘determined to play agreater role in how Internetcontent is delivered’ and that‘they [Bell and Telus] believethey should be thegatekeepers of content, withthe freedom to impose feesfor their role’.”14

Countering theTelecom giants

If a hydro providerannounced it would only allowproducts manufactured byspecific companies to be usedin households or businesses,consumers would be outraged.Researchers, and net neutralityadvocates, Tim Wu andLawrence Lessig, explain thatbecause:

“it remains neutral, theelectricity network hasserved as an importantplatform for innovation. Theelectronics industry designsnew and better electronics,safe in the assumption thatAmerican electricity will beprovided without preferencefor certain brands orproducts. … At the heart ofthis success story lies thepredictability of the networkand a certain security ofinvestment. The uniformityof the electric grid is asafeguard against the risk ofrestrictions and unevenstandards. It providesdesigners and consumersalike with a baseline onwhich they can rely.”15

The similar argument can bemade for most telephoneservices. Calls between people


are not blocked, or the quality ofthe service degraded, becausethe callers are using specifictelephone makes, phonecompanies or discussing certaintopics.

And yet, the telephone hasbecome an essential part ofmost peoples’, and mostbusinesses’, daily lives. And asthe rapid growth of wirelesstelephone services indicate, theneutral nature of the phoneservice has not stifledinnovation or development.

But the major ISPs andtelecommunicationscompanies, and fake grassrootsgroups created to advocate ontheir behalf – often called“Astroturf” – are arguing theopposite. They are claimingthat they need to be able tocreate a two-tiered Internet toallow the continued expansionand development of the serviceand that, if left unregulated,competition in the free marketwill ensure that ISPs will be ableto improve and expand theirservices.

This argument ignores a fewbasic facts about the sector.

First, telecommunications inCanada is dominated by a smallnumber of very largecompanies. The four largestCanadian providers (Telus,Shaw, Rogers and Bell) control


approximately 60% of thecountry’s telecom market(valued at around $32 billion)and the top eight controlbetween 80% to 90% of themarket.16

If the largest ISPs choose todiscriminate there is basicallynowhere else the consumerwill be able to turn to.

According to Michael Geist:“While opponents ofnetwork neutralitylegislation argue that acompetitive marketplaceremoves the need forgovernment intervention,the reality is that the marketfor broadband services inCanada is at best anoligopoly. Most Canadianshave limited choice, withconsumers in urban areaschoosing betweenindistinguishable cable andtelephone Internet packages,while Canadians in ruralcommunities are often leftwith no broadband optionsat all.”Second, these companies are

already reaping huge profits.The Globe and Mail reportsthat Bell Canada, Telus andShaw Communications areamong the top 100 mostprofitable companies inCanada.

A December 2006 report fromStatistics Canada found that:

“The nation’s Internet serviceproviders (ISP), excluding cableand wireless Internet accessproviders, grew more profitablein 2005.

“According to new data fromthe Survey of Internet ServiceProviders for 2005, earnedoperating revenues for theindustry amounted to $1.9billion, up 9% from 2004.

“As well, the industry’soperating profit margin was19%, up from 17% in theprevious year. Much of thisimprovement was due to thestrong performance of theindustry’s largest firms.”17

These telecommunicationsgiants are making huge profitsoff subscription fees, chargesfor corporate access and thesale of their own applicationsand services. Removingnetwork neutrality would onlyserve to allow them to extractmore monopoly rents from anew source of revenue.

Third, consumers are alreadypaying for most networkexpansion of ISPs. Again,according to Statistics Canada:

“Revenues from theresidential subscribers(households) constituted $6out of every $10 earned bythe industry, double the


proportion generated frombusiness sector clients.Governments and publicinstitutions accounted forless than one-tenth of theindustry’s revenues.”18

These ISPs will remain ableto expand and improve theservice based on revenuesgenerated from monthlysubscription fees, equipmentrentals and, increasingly,advertising revenues. As anearlier Statistics Canada reportnoted:

“In recent years, revenuesfrom broadband access haveincreased substantially. Thisgrowth momentum is mostlyattributable to Internet usersshifting from narrowband tobroadband. In 2004, revenuesfrom broadband accessincreased by 23% whilerevenues from the provisionof narrowband accessdeclined by 19%. Revenuesgenerated from broadbandaccess were more thandouble the revenues fromnarrowband access.”19

Fourth, as we have alreadyseen, Canada’s governmentshave invested heavily in thedevelopment and expansion ofthe Internet. The ChrétienLiberal government made theexpansion of broadbandservices to rural and remote


communities a priority andprovided considerable subsidiesand tax incentives totelecommunicationscompanies.

While some critics havehighlighted the failings of theChrétien government toimplement their goals, it isundeniable that considerableinvestment was made into thesector.

And, this does not includethe large investments made byvarious provincial andmunicipal governments.

Finally, there are two waysof dealing with Internetcongestion. One is to expandbroadband services toeveryone on an equal basis –the other is to keep thebottleneck in place and chargeusers to get around theblockage.

Obviously, expandingbroadband service for all isthe most efficient means toaddress the problem.Furthermore, it is equallyobvious that companies willhave little incentive to fix thefundamental problem withincreasing Internet traffic ifthey can simply chargeconsumers more for bypassingthe problem.

Defending netneutrality

“The neutral communicationsmedium is essential to oursociety. It is the basis of a faircompetitive market economy.It is the basis of democracy,by which a community shoulddecide what to do. It is thebasis of science, by whichhumankind should decidewhat is true. Let us protectthe neutrality of the net.”– Tim Berners-LeeInventor of the World Wide

Web20

The opposition to efforts tocreate a two-tiered Internet isgrowing rapidly in the UnitedStates. Organizations likeSavetheInternet.com boast:

“more than a millioneveryday people who havebanded together withthousands of non-profitorganizations, businessesand bloggers to protectInternet freedom.”21

Prominent artists in the musicindustry are also gettinginvolved in the campaign. Anew coalition has formed, Rockthe Net, which has more thantwo dozen founding membersand includes the KronosQuartet, Sarah McLachlan, TheWrens, OK Go, Death Cab forCutie and the Barenaked Ladies.


The coalition is planning a seriesof high profile concerts to raiseawareness and funds tocontinue the fight for netneutrality.22

It is becoming such animportant matter of publicdebate in the United States thatnumerous possible presidentialcandidates have publicly comeout in favour of net neutralitylegislation. The list ofconfirmed candidates thatsupport net neutrality includesHillary Clinton, Barack Obama,and Bill Richardson. Potentialcandidate Al Gore has alsosupported the basic principle ofInternet freedom.

Presidential candidate JohnEdwards said that:

“This goes to the heart andsoul of democracy. Because, ifdemocracy is going to workin this country, then we wantpeople to be well informedand we want a wide varietyof diverse voices to be heard.And that’s what is at issuewith these mediaconglomerates … We reallyhave to stay on top of thisbecause what we seeflourishing at the grassrootscan be stomped on if we’renot careful.”23

Another indication of theinterest that this issue isgenerating is that


SavetheInternet.com now hasmore than 1.6 millionsignatures on its petition toCongress.

To date we have not seen thedebate reach this level ofinterest in Canada. But thereare some encouraging signsthat this is changing.

Members of ParliamentCharlie Angus, NDP, and PaulCrête, Bloc Québécois, havebegun asking tough questionsof the government. Grassrootsmeetings are being organizedand advocacy groups aregrowing.

One website,www.neutrality.ca, has anonline petition and resourcesavailable. Neutrality.ca says itbelieves:

“that the Internet is morethan just the physicalinfrastructure over which itoperates. It is a vibrantmarketplace and an entirelynew format for freeexpression, even a politicallandscape and a tool for freeorganization. Some ISPs inCanada, however, areoverstepping their role andcannot separate theirparticipation in this networkfrom their componentownership and commercialinterests.

“In order to protect theInternet from theseincreasingly invasivecorporate interests, we areasking that the governmentdefine the rules for whichISPs may participate on theInternet and mandate theapplication and contentneutrality of Internet accessproviders.“By protecting Net Neutrality,we guarantee that pro-unionsites do not get blocked, thatISPs do not charge anti-competitive ‘preference’ feesand that independent mediacan compete based oncontent, not pocketbook, withthe largest of publishers.“It’s time for the Canadiangovernment to stand up andprotect the future of theCanadian Internet.”24

And the media is starting totake notice. Important articlesabout the threat to netneutrality have begun to appearin both national and regionalmedia sources.

Canadians need tounderstand the threat to theegalitarian nature of theInternet. We need to demandthat our federal governmentacts in the interests ofCanadians to preserve netneutrality.


Notes

1 www3.fis.utoronto.ca/research/iprp/cracin/alttelecompolicyforum.ca/NetworkNeutrality.html

2 http://broadband.gc.ca/pub/index.html

3 http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,2340,en_2649_34223_38446855_1_1_1_1,00.html

4 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1894/125/

5 http://www.telecomreview.ca/epic/site/tprp-gecrt.nsf/en/rx00062e.html

6 http://broadband.gc.ca/pub/program/case_studies/sfu/index.html

7 http://broadband.gc.ca/pub/program/case_studies/brandon/index.html

8 http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=71f283b3-f8f8-44c4-b0d6-693921262e29

9 www3.fis.utoronto.ca/research/iprp/cracin/alttelecompolicyforum.ca/NetworkNeutrality.html


10 Bleifuss, Joel. “InformationHighway Robbers.” The Nation.May 18, 2006.

11 www.savetheinternet.com/=threat

12 www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1859/125/

13 Zandberg, Bryan. “CanadaSleeps Through War to ‘Save theInternet’”. The Tyee. January 17,2007 (//thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2007/01/17/NetNeutrality/)

14 www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1664/125/

15 www.freepress.net/deadend/=netfears

16 Zandberg, Bryan. Op cit.

17 www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/061218/d061218c.htm

18 ibid.

19 www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051215/d051215e.htm

20 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/blog/4 (2006-06-2116:35.)

21 www.savetheinternet.com

22 www.futureofmusic.org/rockthenet/index.cfm

23 ibid.

24 www.neutrality.ca

the internet: accessibility & net neutralityneutrality. simply put network neutrality, commonly...

Documents