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.

An article on CNet quotes three of Australia’s biggest ISPs as saying that net neutrality is a US problem, based on a business model that delivers flat-rate internet. According to Simon Hackett, managing director of ISP Internode, the problem with an unlimited-access plan, is that it “devalues what a megabyte is worth.”

Telstra Media’s group managing director Justin Milne said that the problem for US telcos is that they have to expand their networks, but they are not getting paid any more money.

American ISPs are thus faced with a choice as to whom to charge in order to build out their networks to accommodate the increased traffic.

The first choice is to absorb the costs themselves, the status quo to date, which is less than desirable as a business model. The second choice is to cease to offer unlimited plans, which passes the cost of excessive bandwidth use onto those users that consume the most.

As I mentioned on Sunday, the NDP’s platform wants it both ways: flat rate for consumers and net neutrality regulations. By logical inference, the NDP’s platform leaves only one choice: no new funding for network upgrades.

Telstra’s Milne says:

You can’t just keep on building these networks forever for free. You can build them bigger and bigger and bigger, but somebody has to pay for it. There has to be a business model by which the network is paid for.

Down under, they don’t seem to share the NDP’s kind of upside down logic.

The Institute for Policy Innovation has released a report [pdf] that asks “Should the U.S. Favor a Free Nationwide Wireless Network Provider?“

The report is in response to plans under development by policymakers for a free nationwide wireless broadband network. The FCC has floated an idea to auction 25 MHz of spectrum for a national wireless network offering free filtered content.

The report takes issue with government intervention – picking a preferred supplier – which interferes with the workings of the marketplace.

Keeping a federal thumb off the scales in the competitive process between providers is important to maintain a stable climate for investments and maintain accountability to consumers.

Many US companies have already placed substantial investments in wireless broadband. Sprint and Clearwire plan a $3.5 billion joint venture with Google, TimeWarner, and others to provide a nationwide 4G wireless broadband service open to any device. AT&T; and Verizon have spent about $10 billion each on spectrum for 4G wireless broadband.

The report concludes that experience of a number of communities building free WiFi networks may be instructive. The firm contracted to offer municipal Wi-Fi in Portland, Oregon, found the deal uneconomical and tried to bow out, but found no buyers. The nationwide wireless proposal sets up a future bailout at taxpayer expense.

In the meantime, the Washington Post reports that the US has passed new legislation that requires the FCC to compile a list of locations that lack broadband service, detailing the population and income levels in those areas. The bill will also require the US Census Bureau to add questions about Internet use, asking whether respondents have a computer, Internet access and, if so, whether dial-up or broadband connection.

Technorati Tags:
broadband, internet, wireless, FCC

Tonight marks the beginning of a new era in two ways.

First off, at sunset our offices close for Rosh Hashana, the start of the Jewish New Year, which begins tonight and runs through Wednesday evening. As such, this is an abbreviated week for blog posts.

Secondly, tomorrow will see the launch of operations for the national Do Not Call List.

Telemarketing in Canada will never be the same.

Will we see an end to those annoying automated announcements offering cruises or easy credit? How many prosecutions will we actually see? How will enforcement go after off-shore operators that use VoIP to complicate tracing calls?

It looks like it will again be a year filled with interesting times. May you be inscribed in the Book of Life for a year of health, happiness, prosperity and peace.

So what do you do when your hosting company has a run of bad luck?

Last Thursday, one of my hosting companies lost POP access to my mail server and following the fix of that problem [implemented late Thursday night] FTP services went down for the next two days, not returning to service until hardware was swapped out in the early hours Sunday morning.

So, I was operating on Thursday from my Blackberry and Friday’s blog post was available only to my RSS readers. That post finally appeared on the normal site late thanks to uploading files through the backdoor web-portal.

All the up-time guarantees in the world don’t ease the frustration when you are trying to work around problems. This was the first major outage in 4 years – but, it is somewhat surprising that the system was down for almost 72 hours.

How do you manage your services to minimize risk of outages? How do you manage your service providers?