Follow us:
Net Neutrality: Rising Regulatory Concern
Perhaps the most pressing concern confronting new media regulation in Canada is “net neutrality.” In their efforts to wring further revenue from various products and services offered over the Internet, there is a danger that Internet service providers (ISPs) will shape traffic flow over their networks, blocking companies that offer competitive services access to their networks and prioritizing those that yield the best return to them. Given the already high degree of cross media ownership in Canada, the potential conflicts of interest in this regard are manifold.
As Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, points out at least one Canadian ISP is already working to prioritize its own Internet telephone service over those of competitors while another has expressed open hostility to such competition. Another company blocked access to a union website during a labour dispute.
The Chairman of the CRTC has indicated that “striking a social, cultural, and economic balance to deal with Internet traffic prioritization” is on the regulatory agenda. Whether or not this results in a “two tier” Internet – one in which ISPs can exploit their control over access to their own economic advantage and political predispositions – is perhaps the key issue facing regulation in this venue. As Geist goes on to point out in the article at the link below, submissions to the September Diversity Hearings are already foregrounding the importance of this issue.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2114/125/
For more information and background, see Michael Geist’s December 2005 article “The Search for Net Neutrality”
http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1040/
See also Neil Barrat and Leslie Regan Shade’s article “Net Neutrality:Telecom Policy and the Public Interest” in the Canadian Journal of Communication (v. 32, no. 3 2007).
http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewissue.php?id=176#Commentary
And for some background on CRTC plans for studying the issues presented by new on-line media, check out Chairman Konrad von Finckenstein’s June 26 speech to the 2007 Broadcasting Invitational Summit.
- Login or register to post comments
Print this
Email this
COMMENTS
According to the band's web site, Pearl Jam's Lollapalooza webcast was censored by sponsor/webcaster AT&T:
When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them.
During the performance of "Daughter" the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" but were cut from the webcast:
* "George Bush, leave this world alone." (the second time it was sung); and
* "George Bush find yourself another home."
But really, who cares, right? Just a bunch of DFHs whining about the fact that the world is at the mercy of the worst president in American history. Boo hoo!
But yes, there are larger implications. Even for you. Clean-cut American, working-class hero that you are:
AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.
Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of "Net Neutrality." Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue.
Most telecommunications companies oppose "net neutrality" and argue that the public can trust them not to censor.
That's right. AT&T, like other telcos who say you can "just trust them" not to censor content in the absence of mandatory net neutrality, just did exactly what everyone who's worried about net neutrality always believe they would do.
What'd that take? About ten seconds?
Why don't people just laugh in the faces of industries that claim they can self-regulate?
Do you want Canada to become a country where corporations and certain politicians collude to have dissenting view points shut out? Is that democracy?? Do not be fooled by the 'let the market decide' argument, because when there is only 2 or 3 providers in the market, who have erected barriers to entry so massive that they remain the only ones in the marketplace, then that is not a free market or in the best interest of Canadian citizens. It will create an undemocratic and tiered system, stifle innovation and our voices.
you point on why "self-regulation" doesn't work is well put. I call it big business regulation - either we regulate them or they regulate us.
Steve Anderson is the national Co-ordinator for Campaign for Democratic Media!