I watched a video from the SaveOurNet.ca folks and I was struck by a comment that followed a clip of Industry Minister Jim Prentice saying:
we have a well advanced internet system in this country, Mr. Speaker. It is not publicly regulated and this point in time we will continue to leave the matter between consumers on the one hand and internet service providers on the other.
Steve Anderson (credited as the founder of SaveOurNet.ca) says
So the danger of that is that Canada could become the backwater of internet innovation because companies could move to the US because they know they have the open internet there.
He goes on to suggest that Canadian politicians and regulators are looking south to follow suit.
Actually, as I have written many times before, Canada already has stronger rules enshrined in our legislation than our neighbours to the south, something that keeps getting overlooked in our zeal to impose additional regulation on the internet.
There is an important concept in Anderson’s statement – the migration to the US. In the old economy, to move to another country, you packed up the office and people and moved bricks and mortar to a new place. In the internet world, you simply host your content on servers bearing a flag of convenience. Your developers may work around the world and come together in the ether of the virtual world.
Do most users have any idea where websites are physically located? Do they (or should they) care? A digital presence is at once global. As a content publisher, if you are anywhere, you are everywhere. As a result, there is global competition for hosting. If you don’t like the prices or terms and conditions being offered by Canadian ISPs, then host your stuff elsewhere.
Isn’t that competitive dynamic more powerful than any regulator?
As a content publisher, if you are anywhere, you are everywhere. As a result, there is global competition for hosting. If you don’t like the prices or terms and conditions being offered by Canadian ISPs, then host your stuff elsewhere.
There is an important distinction that is being overlooked by both of you. It’s between on the one hand, hosting content in Canada (location), and on the other, hosting content for a Canadian audience (target) on the other.
If we’re speaking about mere hosting, then you’re quite right Mark, there’s a clear market incentive to find a more favourable host in another country.
However, if the real point of debate is about the audience, then the prices, terms and conditions of ISPs in Canada will indeed matter. That is to simply say there’s an incentive for content producers to target non-Canadian audiences. In other words, content producers will offer to the market which they can be sure their content won’t be manipulated by the ISPs (remembering of course we’re operating on the assumption that web hosts of the content owners are not in business relationships with ISPs).
This isn’t to say I fully endorse Steve’s point. It’s an open debate as to whether content producers would be deterred from selling to the Canadian market because of discriminatory network management practices. But if you’re going to address his argument you ought not build a straw man.
Mark:
I think that Canadian ISPs earn most of their revenue from consumers, not web content owners. So, it might not matter to them if they drive these content owners out of the country.
Mark:
I am trying to understand the issue of net neutrality with the broadest possible perspective. I was wondering if I could ask you some questions in this regard.
1. You provided a paragraph in the Telecom Act which prevents telecom companies from managing the content of the communications. Do we also have laws that prevent them from managing Internet communications based on its source or destination? If yes, can you provide a reference to that as well.
2. What do you feel about managing Internet communications based on the following:
a) Source or destination
b) Application (such as P2P)
Thank you for your time.
Vishal Malik