A couple weeks ago, the McGill Tribune waded in over its head when it decided to write about whether the CRTC should regulate aspects of the internet.
I was left confused; unable to determine whether or not the Tribune wants the CRTC to intervene.
Here is how the piece started:
Back in 1999, in a rare and uncharacteristic display of good sense, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced: “Our message is clear. We are not regulating any portion of the Internet.” [link to CRTC press release added]
Cheap shot: a populist kind of backhanded compliment – “a rare and uncharacteristic display of good sense” – but the Tribune seems to be applauding a hands off approach to regulating any portion of the internet.
The Tribune introduces the New Media proceeding and puts it in the context of the soon-to-be-released decision on CAIP’s application:
The CRTC recently announced that it will hold hearings to investigate the possible regulation of “new media” in Canada. The announcement comes as the CRTC is deliberating whether or not Internet service providers have the right to throttle bandwidth based on the content clients are accessing. These are both troubling developments.
Note that the Tribune says that the CRTC is deliberating on whether ISPs have the right to throttle based on the content being accessed. Actually, such a case is not in front of the Commission.
The case in front of the CRTC is looking at managing traffic based on a class of applications: peer-to-peer file transfers, regardless of the content. That is an important distinction. Even the Toronto Star makes this same mistake in its article on Monday about New Media subsidies:
In recent months, many Canadian ISPs have engaged in “network management practices” that degrades the bandwidth allocated to certain applications and content.
No ISP has asked for such a right. To my knowledge, no Canadian ISP degrades bandwidth allocated based on the content. What is the basis for such a statement?
The Tribune editorial staff continues to throws stones through literary simile:
Of course, listening to the CRTC talk about regulating the Internet is like watching Don Quixote joust with windmills: neither of them has the slightest idea what they’re up against.
The CRTC has a far deeper understanding of issues associated with the internet than that demonstrated by the editorial board of the McGill Tribune. Despite its ill-informed insult cast toward Gatineau, the Tribune seems to want the CRTC to intervene in ISPs managing traffic loads. I am left confused by the Tribune’s Quixotic tilt.
The Tribune makes other errors, such as its statement about what the CRTC regulates:
Because the CRTC’s jurisdiction only extends over Canadian-operated websites, the negative impacts of regulation will be limited to Canadian content – a cruel irony for an agency whose goal is to “ensure that all Canadians have access to a wide variety of high quality Canadian programming.”
The CRTC’s jurisdiction over websites is at best indirect – by regulating connectivity. This could theoretically be applied to any website. On the other hand, the CRTC can direct funding to stimulate the production of Canadian content, one of the key themes being explored in the New Media proceeding.
Giving Internet service providers the ability to prioritize or block traffic makes them the judge of what Canadians should see.
No and no. This simple statement sounds great if you say it fast enough but it is wrong on two counts: First, there is a difference between prioritizing and blocking: ISPs already have the ability to prioritize traffic and most internet users demand that they exercise such prioritization (who would argue with VoIP calls taking priority over bulk file downloads?). Second, there is a difference between determining what should be blocked and doing the blocking: for example, most Canadian ISPs block content that is determined to be child abuse. The judge is completely independent of them.
The Tribune also seems to think that the internet is some kind of amorphous cloud:
But the Internet is neither Canadian, nor a broadcaster. It’s an international network, and the “old media” rules don’t apply to online content. There are no broadcast licenses to issue and no channels or signals to prioritize.
The part of the internet to which Canadians connect is indeed running on Canadian-owned transmission facilities under the jurisdiction of the CRTC. If it wants to, the CRTC has many weapons in its arsenal with which to address various aspects of Internet regulation.
So, why am I taking on an opinion piece in a student paper, you ask?
Because I think it is important that we get the facts right on issues as important as net neutrality. Since some like to point to having mobilized thousands of supporters using on-line tools, it is important to address errors in emotive articles – whether in the McGill Tribune or the Toronto Star. It is far too easy for people to keep repeating the error often enough so that suddenly people believe it is true.
The Tribune seemed to view the issue through some form of polarized lenses, oscillating between black and white. There are a lot of shades between prioritizing and blocking; between stimulating Canadian content and blocking foreign material.
With so many colours in the rainbow, the Tribune only presented black and white. With that limited palette, they still got the colours wrong.