Search Results for: regulating internet

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.

What is the cost of misinformation?

We know that there is a real societal cost associated with viral misinformation, but what price do purveyors pay to spread their messages?

It turns out, it is pretty cheap. according to a recent article in Fortune, “For as little as $7, TikTok users can garner thousands of views on TikTok, opening a low-cost pathway to spread propaganda on hot-button topics.” The article discusses a surge in social media misinformation triggered by the Middle East conflict.

In Canada, we have seen senior politicians spreading misinformation in poorly informed social media messages, with the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Minister of Innovation all implicating Israel in killing hundreds by bombing a Gaza hospital, when in fact the explosion was caused by a misfired terrorist rocket that didn’t hit the hospital.

It is shameful that none of these three senior politicians have deleted their posts or issued an online clarification. The closest we had was a late night post by Canada’s National Defense Minister (more than 4 days later), absolving Israel from blame. With nearly 7 million followers, the quick-to-tweet politicians didn’t have to pay for their false messages to go viral. The Prime Minister’s post has been viewed more than 2.6 million times, and it was reposted by more than 5,000 other users. The Foreign Minister’s post was seen more than 2.2 million times. By way of contrast, the Defense Minister has only 41,500 followers, less than 1% of the Prime Minister’s 6.5 million. By the time his post was issued, the damage was done.

So, how do we measure the cost of misinformation, especially when the misinformation is spread by people who are supposed to know better?

I have written about government regulation of online harms a number of times in the past. A few weeks ago, in “Regulating misinformation”, I asked “What should be the role of government in regulating misinformation?”

The article in Fortune indicates TikTok “has had its share of criticism for propagating problematic content. It has faced multiple lawsuits for surfacing suicide, self-harm and disturbing content to kids, leading to mental health consequences.”

The BBC writes that “TikTok and Meta have been formally told to provide the EU with information about the possible spread of disinformation on their platforms relating to the Israel-Gaza conflict.” Under the terms of the EU’s Digital Services Act, companies must respond by set deadlines.

Recently, the Government of Canada announced that it plans to move forward with a bill addressing “online hate speech and other internet-related harms.” The Government of Canada’s website on Online Safety says “Now, more than ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.”

How will the legislation deal with the possibility that the online harms originate with the government itself?

Are regulators losing sight of the target objectives? Are we sometimes confusing the means with the end? Do we even know where we are aiming?

Big questions. What do I mean?

When Navdeep Bains was Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, there was a very clear statement summarizing his communications policy objective: “Canada’s future depends on connectivity”. It was clear, concise, and measurable. The telecom sector was told that there was an understanding of the tension that exists as we balance affordability, quality, and coverage in the achievement of those objectives.

Sometimes, it can be easy to lose sight of the target when we don’t pause for a moment to surveille the situation.

Earlier this week, I wrote “Regulators regulate”. If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.

Take a look at what is going on south of the border with the FCC seeking to resurrect network neutrality regulations. As Professor Daniel Lyons of Boston College writes (quoting Justice Scalia), “Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried…”

After three years of quietly effective telecom regulation, the Federal Communications Commission has roared back to life with a new Democratic majority and an obsession to reimpose 2015’s Title II order on broadband providers. Back then, the AEI Tech Policy blog argued that these rules were, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, harmful to consumers and innovation. America’s experience since then has vindicated the decision to repeal net neutrality, leading one to wonder why this has become the Commission’s most pressing concern.

He rhetorically asks (and then answers), “if broadband providers have voluntarily adopted net-neutral practices, what’s the harm in enacting them into law?”

One concern is the chilling effect such rules have on innovation. For example, network slicing, which many providers have implemented since the original net neutrality overturn, can enhance 5G network productivity. This allows wireless providers to dedicate a portion of their capacity for specific services rather than general network packet delivery, thus improving the consumer experience for latency-dependent services.

He argues that net neutrality proponents have strayed from their roots, losing sight of the target. “When Professor Tim Wu first coined the phrase, he was concerned in part that without a neutrality principle, broadband providers would block disfavored speech online.”

Unsurprisingly, allegations that net neutrality’s repeal would mean consumers couldn’t get abortion information or receive the internet “one…word…at…a…time” were unfounded. This is because, as Wu himself notes, broadband providers also have incentives not to block content: the more content a consumer can reach, the more they’re willing to pay for access.

So why is the FCC seeking to re-introduce Net Neutrality? Regulators regulate. There is always the potential for regulatory creep. And, therein we find the concern. According to Professor Lyons, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has stated she has no intention of regulating broadband rates, despite those power being part of the proposed regulations. While this might be so, what happens with the next administration? Poorly drafted legislation – or trying to apply one set of regulations for something else – can lead to unintended consequences.

That is what I meant about being more concerned with the ‘means’ than the ‘end’. What problem are they trying to solve?

This is a problem that I think we have come to appreciate in Canada. The government is trying to apply Broadcasting Act legislation to internet content, expanding the role of the CRTC to act as an arbiter of new media.

What are we trying to achieve? How will we measure success?

Let’s look at how the government’s describes the legislation.

• C-11: “The Online Streaming Act modernizes the Broadcasting Act and helps ensure Canadian stories and music are widely available on streaming platforms to the benefit of future generations of artists and creators in Canada.”
• C-18: “The Online News Act aims to ensure that dominant platforms compensate news businesses when their content is made available on their services.”

In the government’s own words, these are the objectives of these Acts. Reading the legislation, one might be justified asking if we might have gotten lost along the way. As the government and the CRTC move forward with development of regulations that implement the Acts, how do we ensure we aren’t losing sight of the target?

When I load an address into my GPS, the system calculates a route and tells me how far the system expects me to travel. I’m told how long it expects the journey to take. Along the way, the system makes mid-course adjustments, considering traffic, routing around unexpected roadblocks along the way.

The Online News Act, and the Online Streaming Act are the first parts of Canada moving to regulate internet platforms and content.

What are the real objectives? Where are we trying to go? How will we know when we successfully reach our target? How do we know we are making progress toward the ultimate objective? Are these pieces of legislation still the best route?

When driving, we find alternate routes to avoid traffic jams and roadblocks. Is it time for the government to pause, reboot the system and recalculate?

Regulators regulate. It is just what they do.

Consider it to be a corollary to Maslow’s Hammer: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

Why does Canada’s current government seem to believe that regulation should be the primary approach for achieving its communications policy objectives? Indeed, it might help if the government could clearly state what those objectives are and how they are being measured.

A week ago, I wrote about regulating misinformation. Digging way back into the archives, I found this excerpt that appeared as well in a National Post OpEd [ pdf, 330KB] in 2005.

In Canada, as in most countries around the world, we have a regulator that oversees the market for telecom. But what sets the CRTC apart from regulators in nations that are also some of our most important trading partners is the Commission’s presumption that new technologies and services should be regulated. It isn’t surprising. Regulators regulate. It is just what they do.

That article (from more than 18 years ago) spoke of “major changes” in Canada’s communications industry being at hand, as phone services based on internet protocol technology began to move into the mainstream, offering more service capabilities, lower prices and a wider variety of choices for consumers. I identified potential roadblocks, “perhaps the biggest is the possibility of unnecessary regulatory intervention.”

We understand why the CRTC would want to ensure that basic consumer safeguards – including access to emergency safeguards, general protections related to privacy and service level disclosure – are guaranteed. We also recognize that this will likely entail a degree of regulation that, by necessity, should apply equally to all companies offering communications services.

But to go beyond that – to deny certain companies the freedom to offer innovative new services, new capabilities and lower prices without first receiving approval from the Commission – goes too far.

Unfortunately, empowered by recent legislation, the CRTC is extending its regulatory reach beyond the communications facilities and into the content carried over those facilities. In the old broadcast world, this was understandable. Radio waves – spectrum – is a limited resource, so there was only space for a limited number of voices to be carried over the public airwaves. No such limit exists in an internet world. Consumers have the ability to access every program offered anywhere.

That means our ears and eyeballs are no longer fixated on legacy media: newspapers, radio, television. In the case of radio and television, these are regulated by the CRTC under the Broadcasting Act. New media, whether it is streaming alternatives for TV, such as Netflix or Amazon Prime or Apple Plus or other subsciption services, or podcasts and other audio services, or short form content such as TikTok or YouTube, have typically been unregulated, subject only to the terms of service of the platforms.

There were two ways the government could have gone in order to provide regulatory parity for legacy media and new media: relax the regulations on the traditional services; or, regulate the new services. In Canada, the government has chosen to impose regulatory obligations on new media.

It is a consistent approach for Canada. As I wrote earlier this year, “Canada’s policy framework for net neutrality is among the most prescriptive and restrictive.”

Regulators regulate.

Intellectually, I understand the underlying motivation behind the approach that imposes regulation on all content providers. Unfortunately, the legislation has not benefited from meaningful committee review, with the government putting egos and partisanship ahead of genuine improvements to flawed sections of the various Online Acts. We were told that the CRTC will take care of concerns as it works through the details and regulations.

The first details emerged late in the day on the last Friday of September, setting out registration requirements in an 85-page Broadcasting Policy and Order [ pdf, 521KB]. While the CRTC is targeting platforms with more than $10M in Canadian revenue, there are real concerns that smaller content creators will be caught by indirect regulation – the CRTC imposing conditions on a platform, leading the platform to control hosted content produced by smaller independent creators.

Regulators regulate. I get that.

How do we avoid regulatory over-reach to avoid disincentives for Canadians to benefit from investment in content, infrastructure, and leadership in a next generation economy?

I am trying out Bluesky, the relatively new social media app.

You can find me there at: @markgoldberg.bsky.social. Let me know if you are trying out a Twitter alternative.

What happened to Twitter? According to an article last week, Twitter has lost 90% of its value since being acquired by Elon Musk. “If X indeed proves a financial cataclysm, people are likely to forget the excuses, and examine the careening missteps from its mercurial sole proprietor.” I am certain there will be business school case studies written about the way $40 billion of value evaporated so rapidly through self-inflicted wounds.

“Move fast and break things” was an internal motto used by Facebook, as described in a 2009 Mark Zuckerberg interview with Henry Blodget for Business Insider. “Unless you are breaking stuff, you are not moving fast enough.”

But by 2014, another Business Insider interview had Facebook’s founder saying, “We’ve changed our internal motto from ‘Move fast and break things’ to ‘Move fast with stable infrastructure.'” Maybe Twitter’s owner Elon Musk missed that second part. (He has been very good at breaking things.)

“Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy” is the title of a 2017 book by Jonathan Taplin that might be worth revisiting.

From the introduction:

The astonishing and precipitous decline in revenue paid to content creators has nothing to do with the idea that people are listening to less music, reading less, or watching fewer movies and TV shows. In fact, all surveys point to the opposite – the top searched Google items are all about entertainment categories. It is not a coincidence that the rise of digital monopolies has led to the fall of content revenues. The two are inextricably linked.

The book helps to understand the motivation behind Canada’s Online Streaming Act and Online News Act. We can argue about whether these pieces of legislation followed the right approach. Indeed, Canadian policy makers, academics, and stakeholders are continuing to have those arguments.

Contrary to what techno-determinists want us to believe, inequality is not the inevitable byproduct of technology and globalization, or even the lopsided distribution of genius. It is a direct result of the fact that since the rise of the Internet, policy makers have acted as if the rules that apply to the rest of the economy do not apply to Internet monopolies. Taxes, antitrust regulation, intellectual property law – all are ignored in regulating the Internet industries.

I have been writing about “Taming the Internet” since the earliest days of this blog. Remember John Perry Barlow’s “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”?

Just a couple years ago, I wrote “Taming the World Wild Web”, concluding, “It’s no longer a question of whether the World Wild Web can be tamed. The key question is how.”

How do we regulate internet content without infringing freedoms of expression?

Canada seems determined to chart its own path. We will track those legislative initiatives as Parliament resumes next week. But, how does Canadian regulatory action fit within a global context? Last Friday, an US appeals court ruled “that the Biden administration most likely overstepped the First Amendment by urging the major social media platforms to remove misleading or false content about the Covid-19 pandemic”.

You can find me exploring those issues and more on these platforms:

• as markgoldberg2 on LinkedIn;
• as mark_goldberg on Twitter (X);
• as markgoldberg.bsky.social on Bluesky.

I once wrote “Twitter is like Coffee Crisp”:

Twitter makes a nice light snack but it is no replacement for a complete and balanced dinner. Of course, we don’t always have time for a multi-course balanced spread, but I have to think that a diet comprised solely of junk food will catch up to you in time.

For your more complete telecom dining experience, pass up the social media snacking, and bookmark this site.