Search Results for: neutrality

For years, I have found the issue of technological neutrality in legislation to be a fascinating area.

Eleven years ago, I wrote about “Illegal content on the internet,” looking at how the industry needed to find ways to tackle child abuse images on the internet.

Carriers are not being asked to be censors. Canada already has laws that forbid certain types of content. If the illegal content is in printed form, our customs agents confiscate it at the border. If these existing laws are to have meaning, we should be taking steps to close the digital loophole.

There are numerous cases where we treat digital content differently from the same material in print form. Generally, those differences result in more lenient regulation of digital content than the print equivalent. The most significant exception to this rule is commercial marketing messages, which are subjected to extremely harsh legislative restriction in electronic form (For a discussion of CASL, see “Snacking on digital policy,” from 3 years ago), but are freely distributed in paper form.

European states, such as Germany, have been closing its digital loopholes for more than a decade. In 2006, I wrote about an EU directive requiring that service providers retain “data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication” in order to provide law enforcement officials with access to the same information they would have in a paper environment. In 2008, I noted that France ordered ISPs to block hate content. In 2009, I wrote that Germany took steps to protect copyright for content on the internet. At that time, I asked “Are Europeans going to lead in treating digital and conventional content within a technology neutral legal framework?”

Earlier today, Reuters reported “German cabinet agrees to fine social networks over hate speech.” The report attributes to Justice Minister Heiko Maas the statement: “There should be just as little tolerance for criminal rabble rousing on social networks as on the street”.

Why do we still treat the digital world differently?

A few months ago, Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains said “The digital economy is the economy.” He is right.

Perhaps in recognition of the transition of the economy, Canada’s recent Budget promised a review of the legislation that governs the internet:

To ensure that Canadians continue to benefit from an open and innovative Internet, the Government proposes to review and modernize the Broadcasting Act and Telecommunications Act.

In this review, the Government will look to examine issues such as telecommunications and content creation in the digital age, net neutrality and cultural diversity, and how to strengthen the future of Canadian media and Canadian content creation.

As part of that review, Canada might consider exploring those areas in which the digital economy receives different treatment from legacy and determine whether each of the distinctions are appropriate.

How will net neutrality regulations impact the competitive telecommunications marketplace? Will net neutrality encourage innovation or entrench the position of current applications?

On the morning of June 1, The Canadian Telecom Summit will be hosting a panel titled “Competition in Telecom: Net Neutrality and Innovation” to explore these issues with some of North America’s top minds. With the support of the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University, we have assembled a distinguished panel with a broad range of perspectives.

Our panel brings together leaders from Canada and the United States:

• Dvai Ghose (moderator), Managing Director & Head of Research at Canaccord Genuity, has consistently been ranked as an all-star Canadian Telecom and Cable Services Analyst by Brendan Wood International. He has also been ranked the number one equity analyst for stock picking and EPS estimate accuracy in the Telecommunication sector in North America by Starmine and Forbes Magazine.
• Ariel Katz is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, where he holds the Innovation Chair in Electronic Commerce. His general area of research involves economic analysis of competition law and intellectual property law, with allied interests in electronic commerce, pharmaceutical regulation, the regulation of international trade, and particularly the intersection of these fields.
• John Lawford is Executive Director and General Counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), a national non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
• Len Waverman has been a professor of economics at the University of Toronto and the London Business School and Dean of the Haskayne School of Business as well as professor of strategy at the University of Calgary. He is currently Dean of the DeGroote School of Business.
• Christopher Yoo, Director, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at University of Pennsylvania Law School, has emerged as one of the leading authorities on law and technology. His research focuses on how the principles of network engineering and the economics of imperfect competition can provide insights into the regulation of electronic communications.

This session should be interesting and provoke considerable discussion.

Have you registered yet for The 2015 Canadian Telecom Summit?

In case Canadians thought only Canadian politicians couldn’t resist the urge to interfere with the deliberations of independent regulators, US President Barack Obama waded into the FCC’s open internet proceeding today with a statement on Net Neutrality. Importantly, the statement recognizes that his perspective is not the final word:

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.

The issue, of course, is more complex than that laid out in the President’s statement.

The Chair of the FCC, Tom Wheeler replied, thanking the President for his input and made it clear that it is just one submission of thousands received, with more to come:

I am grateful for the input of the President and look forward to continuing to receive input from all stakeholders, including the public, members of Congress of both parties, including the leadership of the Senate and House committees, and my fellow commissioners. Ten years have passed since the Commission started down the road towards enforceable Open Internet rules. We must take the time to get the job done correctly, once and for all, in order to successfully protect consumers and innovators online.

As Chairman Wheeler observed, there are different routes that can be followed and each presents challenges in creating an enforceable framework, able to withstand legal challenges: “The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options, the more it has become plain that there is
more work to do.”

Canadians should keep in mind that on this file, the CRTC is more than 5 years ahead of the United States. In October 2009, Canada’s regulator issued its rules on internet traffic management practices, ITMPs, in Regulatory Policy 2009-657.

The next day, more than 5 years ago, I observed: “Later today, there will be an announcement from the FCC that will be much heralded by many who confuse political rhetoric for action. It will be a long process before the US has any kind of net neutrality regulation, let alone the proposed framework that will be articulated today by the FCC.”

A long process. Hah!

Five years later, the US is still fighting over how it will regulate the internet.

Is it actually clear that the FCC will be able to regulate it? Indeed, is it clear that the internet should be regulated?

The tweet from Keith McIntosh at CWTA summed it up:

After 28 years, WSPs are no longer simply a customer of the phone companies.

He was referring to the CRTC decision that updates “Network interconnection for voice services”. In today’s decision, the last major telecom proceeding to be issued under the signature of Chairman Konrad von Finckenstein, the CRTC decided to treat wireless and wireline networks as peers:

Currently, independent wireless carriers are responsible for paying the entire cost of interconnection unless they allow alternative long-distance providers access to their networks. The Commission has decided that wireless carriers can interconnect with LECs for the exchange of local voice traffic on a shared‑cost basis (with the bill‑and‑keep compensation method)

This decision was made, despite the CRTC determining that it would not be in the public interest to impose equal access to alternative long distance. Prior to today’s decision, wireless companies that wanted to be treated as peers (for the purpose of sharing interconnection costs) needed to offer equal access, as well as directory listings and file details of all their service options with applicable prices and applicable service charges to the Commission.

The decision also addressed the technical aspects of evolution of interconnection circuits for competitive carriers. We’ll look at that in another post.

In many ways, today’s decision was a recognition by the Commission of the heightened level of competition present in today’s wireless space, contrary to the views of an Open Media campaign that seeks increased government intervention in the space.

In its upcoming policy for the auction of the 700 MHz band, it will be interesting to see if Industry Canada shares that view of the competitive landscape.

Earlier this week, some reports suggested the EU is launching an investigation into internet traffic throttling and blocking. I read the source material differently. To me, this looks more like talk than action

First off, let’s remember that for the past 18 months or so, Canada has led the world in having an actual net neutrality regulatory framework in place.

The Associated Press reports that the EU has asked its member countries to investigate whether ISPs block or slow traffic in a way that harms consumers.

If national telecommunications regulators find that providers are not transparent enough about how they manage their services or make it too difficult for users to switch, the European Commission, the EU’s executive, may propose new legislation to protect the principle of “net neutrality.”

But there is already an acknowledgment from the EU that some traffic is OK to be managed:

In its report Tuesday, the Commission says “it is widely accepted” that providers have to slow down some services to allow others to work.

“A consumer’s experience is not affected if an email reaches him a few seconds after it has been sent, whereas a similar delay to a voice communication would cause it to be significantly degraded, if not rendered entirely useless,” the Commission said.

Another report suggests that the exercise may be to develop a “name and shame” list.

Be sure to review the actual releases from the European Commission, including the press release on ISP transparency, the briefing remarks, and the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament [pdf, 157 KB].

There is a recognition of the need to permit operators to determine their own business models, while seeking to offer consumers choice and the ability to easily switch service providers if they are not satisfied with their access to lawful content.

Any additional regulation should avoid deterring investment, or innovative business models, lead to a more efficient use of the networks and to creating new business opportunities at different levels of the internet value chain while reserving for consumers the advantages of a choice of internet access products tailored to their needs.

The briefing remarks seem to indicate that Commissioner Neelie Kroes would ideally like to see market forces used to enable consumer choice.

If I am not satisfied that consumers can counteract such practices by switching providers, I will not hesitate to introduce more stringent measures. That could be in the form of more prescriptive guidance, or even legislation if it is needed.

We’ll see how this investigation translates into new legislation or operator codes of conduct.