A coalition has released a “report” [
pdf] calling for an increased awareness of net neutrality and for political candidates to support their drive for regulating internet service providers.
The document is more of a brochure, a collection of advocacy statements with a skewed view of the history of the internet, seeking to inject new regulation over private sector business models.
It includes an attempt to compare internet service to electric power. In my view, the metaphor doesn’t support an argument favouring net neutrality regulations.
It would be ludicrous to imagine a hydro company charging a premium to customers who used the service to power innovative appliances, for example refrigerators that also dispensed ice cubes.
What I found ludicrous is the relevance of this statement to the position advocated by the net neutrality camp. Where should I start?
First, hydro companies charge by the kilowatt; the more power you use, the more you pay. On the other hand, Canadians like flat rate internet services. In fact, in its platform, the NDP (a member of the coalition) has called for net neutrality to include the mandating of flat rate pricing. Second, hydro companies are implementing ways to control consumption by power hungry, non-real time “applications” (like air conditioners) during peak periods. Their current method of controlling demand is rotating brown-outs. Sound like “throttling” to anyone?
Is “Save Our Net” going to set its next objective to promote flat rates for power? That will probably cost them support from the Green Party, another member of the coalition. Or are they looking to contradict the NDP platform and advocate for all internet pricing to be “by the bit” – a business model that Canadians just don’t want. I don’t think we’re enamored with our electric utility’s monthly customer charge, delivery fees and debt retirement charge.
Either way, capacity for power delivery is no more unlimited than the myth of unlimited flow of bits, regardless of the business model for cost recovery.
The coalition also suggests that Net Neutrality legislation isn’t new; it is analogous to the safeguards found in Sections 27(2) and 36 of the Telecom Act.
However, the current provisions are insufficient to safeguard network neutrality in Canada. The central problem is that Sections 27(2) and 36 predate the internet, thus were not drafted with modern telecommunications technology in mind. So, for example, it remains unclear what unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable preference amount in our modern context. [sic]
Well this is interesting. The Telecom Act was actually written in the internet era, proclaimed in force as of October 25, 1993 and amended in 1998.
Where is the evidence that these provisions are insufficient?
Further, the paper ignores the history of content distribution networks and the fact that large content providers have worked with major ISPs for more than a decade to find ways to get their content delivered faster to consumers. Content companies work with ISPs (and pay them) to find ways to speed up downloads and improve the user experience – hardly consistent with the banner in the “report” that proclaims “Prioritization deals are bad for consumers“.
But let’s go back to that flat rate model for electricity. I guess I would think about supporting a platform that lets me run the air conditioner all day and all night for $40 per month. Can you get me gas for my furnace and barbecue at that price as well? That isn’t likely coming.
I am troubled by the use of fear mongering headlines like “Telco companies [sic] shouldn’t decide which Internet businesses succeed“. When have telephone companies, or any other types of ISPs, suggested that they would make such a determination? What purpose is served by throwing this into this document that is looking at net neutrality?
So, I encourage you to take a good look at the piece from Save Our Net with a critical eye. With such a cadre of support for their cause, I expected a better quality piece.