Save Access

from: Toronto Star

An Internet rigged by providers?
Jun. 19, 2006. 07:14 AM
ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

If you're like many Canadians, you hate the way you have to take — and pay for — TV channels you never watch just to get those channels you do watch.

What's more, there are channels you do want, but can't get at any price.

Now imagine this sort of thing happening with the Internet.

Depending on your service provider, say Bell Canada, you might find yourself unable to subscribe to a voice-over-Internet service such as Skype because it competes with Ma Bell.

Or say it's Rogers: You might want to download the BBC News. But, because Rogers wants to reserve bandwidth to transmit its Blue Jays games, the Beeb slows down to a crawl.

Or maybe you want to transmit a large file — a video of a university lecture, for example — via BitTorrent. The "traffic shaper'' at your ISP says no, that bandwidth is for our movies.

None of this "preferred routing'' is on the horizon for Canadian consumer.

Yet.

But proponents of Internet freedom are casting a wary eye south. On June 8, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a new media bill: the ironically named Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006.

The House did so while torpedoing an amendment that would have prevented cable and phone companies from rigging their networks "to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access . . . services over the Internet."

In other words, the COPE Act contains no guarantees of Internet equality.

That's called "network neutrality,'' or "net neutrality" — and the effort to maintain it has created an unlikely coalition whose members include the Gun Owners of America, Amazon, Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Vonage, the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, Microsoft, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, AARP, ACLU and every major consumer group in the U.S.

In short, everybody but the guys who own and control the wires — and the politicians and lobbyists who love them.
"Any law enforcing `Net Neutrality' would be a terrible blow to Internet freedom,'' said Alex Epstein, a fellow at the far-right Ayn Rand Institute, in a statement.

"Just as cable companies have a right to apportion their bandwidth between Internet and television data, so Internet providers have a right to apportion their bandwidth between standard and premium Internet data."
COPE passed much — but not exclusively — along party lines, with virtually every Republican and a majority of Democrats voting to support the ginormous broadband providers (the Comcasts, Coxes, Time-Warners, and Verizons etc.) who have lobbied with tens of millions of dollars against net neutrality.

Now, it must be said that, to their credit, the Big Guys helped build the information highway. But they also did so to enormous profit as others provided the content that made consumers want to sign on.

But now the broadband providers want to dictate who drives on their information highways, how fast they go and what kind of vehicle they use.

Their argument is that they need maximum flexibility in order to keep building the networks and keep "innovating."

Except for one thing: The innovations have not come from the cable guys or the phone giants. They have come from individuals working in their basements and their garages.
"Network discrimination alters the fundamentally open architecture of the Internet and forces innovators to negotiate with network operators before they can get into business — ending the era of `innovation without permission,' as Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet, calls it," said Mark Cooper of SaveTheInternet.com. in a statement last week.

"Getting rid of network neutrality will make the current open Internet more closely resemble the closed world of cable television," added Jeff Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "Content that will dominate will be what is associated with the big phone and cable companies. Other content providers will be confined to the Internet equivalent of a dirt road. And it's not just PCs but also information going to mobile devices and such that will be affected."

Why do broadband providers want control?
Because they're also providers of so-called "triple-play services'' — voice, video and data — and they want to reserve the bandwidth for their products.

There's also revenue potential in getting content providers to pony up for preferential treatment. For example, in order for MSNBC's news site to load as quickly as Time Warner's CNN does, it would have to pay up.

Nobody says providers should be prevented from making profits. They could charge more for their services, for example — although consumers, who don't have access to a truly competitive market, could get gouged.

But at least Web users would have a choice, albeit a limited one, and could switch providers.
On Thursday, the COPE bill is to go before the Republican-controlled Senate where, from the looks of it, it will be passed.

If it does get through, what can Canadians look forward to?

"If they don't get that (net neutrality) provision in the U.S., there won't be a direct effect on Canadian consumers," explained Star columnist and Internet law expert Michael Geist in an interview. "But in terms of the broader impact for innovation and the like, there would certainly be an impact here.

"And it would likely embolden even further the Teluses and the Bells and the Rogers to push their plans for greater discrimination."

Netizens, time to stand on guard.