LibertyVoice

The era that Net Neutrality supporters have long feared is here — major companies have begun divvying up the internet. Last month, Google and Verizon announced a "policy framework" of how the rules for the internet could work in the future. The framework is a disturbing vision for the future. Wireless internet — such as services delivered over smart phones — would be completely unregulated; companies would be free to prioritize their own services — for everything from music to video to chat — over those of competitors.

Telecom providers could also do whatever they want with managed services, like Verizon’s FIOS, that are offered directly to the companies but use the same wires and bandwidth as the regular internet. Regulators under this new framework would be neutered, reduced to policing a narrow area of consumer complaints with no power over vast swaths of the web. If these new rules are adopted, the regular internet will quickly become a backwater. All the investment and capital funding would go toward building up the managed services and wireless networks where the companies would have free reign to use their market power to make the most money.

All of this has enormous implications for all of us — not just as consumers but as citizens. The Internet is quite simply the tool for exercising our First Amendment rights. Not only does it give every one of us access to a worldwide audience, it also allow us to discover and expand our connections to other people, opens new vistas for freedom of the press and allows us to petition our government in new and exciting ways.

Individual bloggers can describe the effect of poverty and Hurricane Katrina. Protesters can tweet the location of protests in Iran. Websites dedicated to government accountability can widely disseminate their work. These actions are all predicated on a free and open internet where no one is barred access to particular sites, texts aren’t blocked because they’re controversial and companies can’t secretly degrade the performance of some web services (like Comcast did to BitTorrent).

In fact, net neutrality has always been the default for the internet. It wasn’t until 2005 that the courts and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stripped away this protection. Since that time, public interest groups and companies on both sides have fought a pitched battle at the FCC, in the courts and in Congress over what the rules should be. But we worry that a dangerous time is ahead for internet openness. After a recent court decision questioning FCC authority over the internet, large companies like Google and Verizon seem to be signaling that they think the time is ripe to begin dividing up the internet into pieces (wireless, managed services and the “public” internet) so they can maximize profits.

But this isn’t inevitable. The FCC is considering action this fall to regulate telecommunications providers so that they have to provide full, fair service to everyone with no discrimination or deals between companies.

Now’s the time for you to take action: Show your support for the FCC’s efforts to restore Net Neutrality.

(Originally posted at Care2.)

A recent Net Neutrality proposal from Google and Verizon has dominated the news this week, with opponents claiming that the deal would kill Net Neutrality on wireless (cellular) networks. What hasn’t been mentioned thus far, however, is that BitTorrent and other types of evil traffic have already been banned for years by Verizon, AT&T and others.

Yesterday I appeared as a panelist in an FCC Open Internet workshop in Seattle.  Media coverage of the event here.  My comments should be available soon via the FCC Open Internet site.

Last fall, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission issued its much-anticipated Internet traffic management ruling, better known as the net neutrality decision. The case attracted national interest as the CRTC established several key requirements for Canada’s Internet providers.

These included new transparency obligations that forced ISPs to disclose their network management practices, such as why the practices were introduced, who will be affected, when it will occur, and how it will impact users' Internet experiences (down to the specific impact on speeds). The CRTC also opened the door to complaints about network management practices by establishing a test that any harm to users be as little as reasonably possible.

Several months later, Canada's ISPs have had ample time to comply with the new requirements, yet my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) reviews the policies from the biggest ISPs – including Bell Canada, Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Telus, Cogeco Inc., and Groupe Vidéotron – and reveals a decidedly mixed bag.

Two of the six providers – Telus and Vidéotron – do not have explicit network management practice disclosures since neither currently uses throttling or traffic shaping technologies that limit the speeds of some applications.  Of the remaining four providers, no one makes it easy to find the disclosures and at least two may not be compliant with the CRTC requirements.

Bell features the most detailed disclosure, providing specific information about its policies and their impact.  While critics may object to the positive spin the company uses to describe limitations on its service, it has done precisely what the CRTC asked.  The Rogers policy is not quite as extensive, yet it also covers much the same terrain, including a description of the policy, the frequency of traffic shaping, and the resulting limitations in their service (including the specific impact on speed).

By contrast, neither Shaw nor Cogeco appear to meet the CRTC requirements.  Shaw's policy, which can be found within its terms of use, does not disclose the actual speeds users encounter when it throttles peer-to-peer activity.  Cogeco, which implausibly claims "customer experience is never affected by the application of [its] measures," similarly does not disclose the speeds that result from its throttling practices.

Not only are two providers arguably failing to meet the transparency requirements, but some traffic management practices may be ripe for complaint.

Telus and Vidéotron once again get a pass, since neither uses throttling technologies, opting instead for economic measures that add additional costs for heavy broadband users.  Shaw's policy also appears compliant with the CRTC minimal harm threshold, since it limits its throttling practices to actual instances of congestion on specific segments of its network.  

Meanwhile, Rogers and Cogeco continuously throttle all upstream P2P traffic. Both providers admit that the limits on their service occur on a 24 hour, 7-day basis, regardless of whether the network is actually experiencing any congestion.  For example, Cogeco claims "it is [our] experience that congestion created by P2P can occur at any time within a 24-hour period."  This may be true, but the failure to limit throttling activities to instances of actual congestion is surely grounds for a CRTC complaint.

While Bell limits its throttling practices to specified periods, its defined period is so broad that it too may be the target of a complaint. Bell discloses that its throttling practices, which target upload and download traffic, runs from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am.  By covering nearly half the day, the company could face questions about whether the policy limits harm as much as reasonably possible.

The CRTC's net neutrality guidelines garnered well-deserved plaudits last year, yet the true test will be whether the guidelines will be enforced effectively.  Last month, the CRTC sent letters to several ISPs – including Shaw, Rogers, Cogeco, and Bell – seeking action.  The ISPs have yet to respond.

Since I wrote my last post suggesting (rather speculatively) that Google’s apparent willingness to pull out of China might be linked to US state fears of (and pressure concerning?) cyber espionage against data held by Google about US citizens instead …

U.S. President Barack Obama has reinforced his support for net neutrality.  When asked about the issue, he responded "I’m a big believer in Net Neutrality. I campaigned on this. I continue to be a strong supporter of it. My FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has indicated that he shares the view that we’ve got to keep the Internet open, that we don’t want to create a bunch of gateways that prevent somebody who doesn’t have a lot of money but has a good idea from being able to start their next YouTube or their next Google on the Internet."

Ignited by the Comcast fiasco in the US, the concept of Net Neutrality has been brought into the mainstream resulting in planned government interventions. However, unlike the name suggests, Net Neutrality might not stop BitTorrent blocking and could leave us worse off than when this all started.

SaveOurNet.ca points to a letter written by NDP MP Charlie Angus to Industry Minister Tony Clement late last year on net neutrality.  The money paragraph focuses on the enforcement side of the CRTC's Internet traffic management guidelines:

I urge you to do what is in your power to curtail ISP's discriminatory traffic-shaping practices. In order to make Net Neutrality a reality in Canada, I would ask that you direct the CRTC to adopt it as part of Canada's internet policy, and enforce it through regular compliance checks of ISP traffic.

As the traffic management guidelines take effect, Canadians should begin to see more detailed disclosure of ISP traffic management practices and the possibility of complaints or investigations.

The Pirate Party’s Christian Engstrom is already making waves in the European Parliament. After his hard work on the Telecoms Package amendment he’s now working to set up an Internet Bill of Rights, attempting to codify some of the core beliefs of the Pirate Party. To achieve this he wants your help.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre has released a major new report on net neutrality. Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality, canvasses recent decisions and makes recommendations for future actions.  It arises from six focus groups conducted in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.