The Globe and Mail is reporting that Turkey has ordered ISPs to block access to YouTube, because of videos that are “allegedly insulting the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.”
It is another country asserting national sovereignty over the internet. Italy acted previously with respect to child pornography. Brazil had blocked YouTube, Denmark blocking AllofMP3.com. France and Germany have their own restrictions.
Paul Doany, head of Turk Telekom said:
We are not in the position of saying that what YouTube did was an insult, that it was right or wrong. A court decision was proposed to us, and we are doing what that court decision says.
Who should make these kinds of determinations for various types of content?
To what extent can countries exert sovereign authority over their portion of the internet? Should countries have that authority?
The headline grabbing news that Canada’s wireless penetration rates were on par with Gabon helped colleagues enjoy their 15 minutes this week.
Statistics can be persuasive. They appear to be so factual, but also allow for distraction through irrelevant comparisons. Comparing Canadian wireless prices to overseas rates is an example of such comparisons.
Outside of North America, wireless services are paid for using a system known as Calling Party Pays (CPP). When you travel overseas, it is quite common to be able to get a phone with unlimited incoming calls for free from your hotel; the hotel and their supplier carrier make money everytime you receive a call. Incoming calls are free but you pay for outgoing calls, often a lot, especially if calling to another carrier.
Why is European data usage so much higher? A large component is text messaging to people in order to avoid placing expensive voice calls. You text message your colleague or parent at the office and have them call you back – call it the modern way of taking home pens and pads of paper from the office. Free monthly service, high per minute outbound calling, high costs to call to a mobile from fixed lines or other carriers. Is that the kind of competitive wireless environment we want to emulate?
Canadian wireless minutes of use are higher than most other countries. Is this consistent with a conclusion that prices are inhibiting use of wireless? Canadian rates per minute have fallen substantially and can be expected to continue along that trajectory. Calling plans are continuing to get more creative. As a consumer, I would like rates to fall even more – I like free, to tell the truth.
But government intervention to artificially stimulate an additional competitor? I liked the opening of Rob Carrick’s column in yesterday’s Globe and Mail:
The Prime Minister said the other day that paying fees to withdraw money from a bank machine annoys him. Me, too. I’m also annoyed by the inability of the Toronto Maple Leafs to win the Stanley Cup, by morning rush-hour traffic and the long lines at every Tim Hortons in the country. Do I want the government to get involved and solve these problems?
The same applies to wireless service competition. Let the marketplace work.
Although, I’d agree with government action to help the Leafs. Playoffs are around the corner.
As I was sitting waiting my turn at a 4-way stop in my neighbourhood, watching the morning car-pools blow through the intersection 2-3 cars at a time, the last one not even slowing down, it struck me that we already have the right laws in place.
There are rules about undue preference and blocking. The CRTC has reviewed a number of cases and made determinations.
Net neutrality advocates like to point to the TELUS blocking of a website as a reason why we need new net neutrality laws. I disagree. No new regulations are needed. The existing rules prohibit that kind of blocking already.
It is like saying that we need new speeding laws because some people drive 140 kmph on the highway.
Do we need new laws, new policies, new regulations when there are already plenty on the books?
There is a little story in Network World suggesting that a flu pandemic could choke the ‘net, leading to requests for voluntary curbs in high bandwidth applications.
Is that the only acceptable solution? Should network operators be prohibited from doing their own traffic management? Do government applications, such as health care management or national security, merit priority treatment? What about corporate PVNs? Should QOS be permitted for work-at-home applications?
Alternatively, do you believe that all content should be treated the same – voice, video, web browsing, multi-million dollar stock trades, checking the balance on my savings account, two-way remote surgery – “don’t allow a two-tiered internet.” A bit is a bit is a bit.
Are there net neutrality advocates who are willing to say that an internet application providing interactive residential remote health care should have no greater priority than my neighbour’s kid downloading movies?
If preferred handling of health and corporate network traffic is permitted, what are the criteria for acceptable tiers of service? When is it acceptable to discriminate?
The Globe and Mail discussed a new report, Lament for a Wireless Nation, from Seaboard Group, that concludes “Canadian wireless adoption is a national disgrace.” The report says that Canada’s adoption rate for cellphones puts it on par with Tunisia and slightly behind Turkey.
According to the Globe and Mail account:
Seaboard suggests the government take several steps to improve the situation for Canadians, including allocating wireless spectrum for one or more new competitors. The spectrum could be awarded to a new national carrier or one or more regional operators.
The newspaper says that the report is calling for new entrant incentives, such as a spectrum set-aside and mandated tower sharing.
Is Canada’s wireless penetration rate lagging because of our pricing, or is more aggressive pricing the result of higher penetration rates? As I have written already, I am not convinced that government intervention can avoid unintended consequences from interfering with the normal workings of the marketplace. I don’t think Seaboard’s recommendations are able to be implemented without market distorions.
For example, the Seaboard study found that low volume users are better off in Canada, paying 27% less than their counterparts in the US. Not all rates in Canada are worse than US comparables.
It is somewhat hard to understand Seaboard’s view that mobile phone companies should target new demographics, like seniors, with appropriate pricing. It appears that their own study shows Canada already has better standby emergency rate plans, despite the drag on carrier ARPU from these plans. When I wrote about the grey market for mobile last month, I was advocating big button, easy-to-use handsets, not critiquing the rates that are available.
It seems to me while heavier users may have the most to gain from Seaboard’s recommendations, low volume users may have everything to lose.
Will low-income Canadians lose their price advantage as an unintended consequence of government manipulation of the market to incent competition?
