saveournet.ca fact vs. fiction report

8/3/2019 SaveOurNet.ca Fact vs. Fiction Report

1/7

e Internet has become one of modern society's most valued resources, Its changed the way people engage with their communities, as witnessedthe surging popularity of blogging and social networks, It has become al for Canadians to express their creativity and unique cultural identity toworld. For today's youth, the Internet has become the dominant mediumsocial exchange.e Internet's freedom and diversity are facets of a long-standing principle ofternet transport called "network neutrality". This principle obligates thoseo own the Internet's infrastructure to maintain the integrity of the data thatsses through the network.the past, network operators have respected this neutrality principle andve refrained from blocking, degrading, or prioritizing certain content,rvices, or applications based on their source, ownership, or destination.t a new technology called Deep Packet Inspection ("OPI") enablestworks to squeeze more profit from their infrastructure investment byeeding up network uses which are valuable to the company, and slowingwn those which are not.

using OPI to 'throttle' peer-to-peer ("P2P") applications, Canadiantwork operators such as Bell, Rogers, and Shaw Cable are now violatingtwork neutrality.

FactsConsumer Non-neutral networkChoice hamper consumers'

freedom to chooseLegislation Net-neutrality laws

not new

Innovation A neutral network foinnovation

Throttling It is discriminatory anegatively affects thuser experience

Ownership It's our Internet


2/7

on-neutral networks hampernsumer's freedom to choose.

t io n: An ISP burdened by net neutrality would be forced to offer a "onee fits all" Internet service because the principle acts as a limit on theator's freedom to control its network.

Network neutrality does permit ISPs to sell tiered access plans. Theciple only requires that information which flows over the connection-be it" or "extreme"-be carried in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

st Canadians receive Internet access through either the telephone wireL) or cable. While consumers are not forced to purchase Internet accessthe operator of these networks (e.g., Bell Canada), the Canadian reality

that the data must almost always flow through one of the incumbentcommunication networks.re is little incentive for these dominant players to voluntarily adopt thetrality principle - it prohibits profitable deal making between ISPs andtent providers. What it does is protect consumers from being treated as a

hout network neutrality these network operators are free to engage in ay Soprano business model by demanding a cut from the Internetanies who want access to the residential Internet subscribers.

Telco companies shouldndecide which Internetbusinesses succeed

Net neutrality isan importantprecondition for true consumer choice

the Internet. In the free market, thecustomer votes with his or her wallet andecides which businesses succeed and

which must fail. Hence, Internet companshould win or lose based on the merits

the products they deliver. Networkoperators should not be permitted todistort this forum by selectively

manipulating the flow of information


3/7

Network neutrality lawsare not new.

Net neutrality laws would expand government regulation. Whyislate when the industry has operated fine without governmentlvement for decades?

The telecommunications industry has a long history of regulation.mmon carrier" laws require that communications transmitted over theumbent networks be carried without discrimination and were in placeg before the Internet existed.he United States, the common carriage principle dates back to theinning of the US Postal Service. The USPS was formed in partause the Royal Post refused to carry packages for certain groups iniety. As the service gained in popularity, so too grew theion that anyone should be able to send anything, toone without fear of his or her message being blocked or

stern Union had a monopoly telegraph business during thely 20th century. It abused its market position by pricingential competitors out of business, and refusing to grantersal access to its trunk lines.stern Union stood as an example for United Statesmakers: network operators cannot be trusted to mind thelic's interest. With this lesson at hand, stringent commonrier regulations were introduced and enforced as thephone networks grew across the United States. Sincen, "common carriage" has become a fundamental tenantthe communications network for a free and democratic

"Ground rules are needed to ensure thatbandwidth management strategies of thetelecoms will not lead to anti-competitivepractices or arbitrary discrimination againsuse applications" -NDP MP Charlie Angu

Photo courtesy of Jean R

~ Canada's Telecommunications AUnjust discrimination27.(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation toprovision of a telecommunications service orcharging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminategive an undue or unreasonable preference towany person, including itself, or subject any personan undue or unreasonable disadvantage.Content of Messages36. Except where the Commission approotherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not controlcontent or influence the meaning or purposetelecommunications carried by it for the public.

anada, the common carrier provision of the Telecommunications Act reflects our neighbour's skepticism.tion 36 was adopted from an earlier 1968 code that dealt solely with telephone networks. That statue wasBell Canada Special Act, instituted to ensure that incumbent carriers would not attempt to manipulateent carried over the network.wever, the current provisions are insufficient to safeguard network neutrality in Canada. The central problemhat sections 27(2) and 36 predate the Internet, thus were not drafted with modern telecommunicationshnology in mind. So, for example, it remains unclear what unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable

amount in our modern context.


4/7

A neutral network fostersinnovation.

It is often suggested that neutrality legislation would prohibitwork operators from designing a more efficient network and offeringred products to individual customers.

Net neutrality would only be violated if a prospective network designned its efficiency by carrying certain content or services faster than others.s certainly possible for a network operator to design and implement are efficient means of routing packets.e such design is suggested by the P4P working group, a consortium ofwork operators, universities, content providers, and software designers. Itws network neutrality to be maintained, but enables users of P2Plications to connect to peers inside their own network more frequently,eding downloads and reducing strain on the network.t in the Internet's short history, the most exciting economic and technicalovations have occurred at the "edges" of the network-that is, the mostative and innovative product designs have come from the users of the

twork neutrality allows innovation without permission. It was theson why Tim Berners-Lee was free to introduce his "World Wide Web" topublic without asking network operators what they thought. The collegeentors who developed a smart and speedy search algorithm (Google)n't need the network's green light either; nor did the teenager whoigned eBay. The independent news organization, Rabble.ca hasrished on the Internet, building innovative programs and media networksRabbleTV and the rabble podcast network (rpn). Similarly, Vancouver-ed NowPublic.com has freely developed a successful and unique "crowdered" journalism website where average citizens upload their stories anddia content.Internet provided these inventors with a free and equal platform to reachincredible number of consumers, at relatively low 'start-up' costs. Inrt, network operators are allowed to pick and choose which content getsride in the fast lane, future innovators will have to impress (or pay off) thee-keeper' before gaining access to consumers.hibiting network operators from interfering with the natural flow of internetfic is the best way to guarantee that the internet marketplace remainsantly competitive. It will ensure that internet 'start-ups' will continue tooy minimal barriers to market entry.

WWW Creator,T im Berners- L ee

"I wanted to design the World Wide WI decided to call it, to be usable for anon any system. I had watched the faiso many sophisticated documenaccess systems which constrainedusers to use one type of computeoperating system. If really anything couon the Web, then the Web technshould demand almost nothing of its usThe reason that I could just design thby myself and set it running on a coucomputers without asking anyone, wathe Internet in tum had been designedused for anything, constraining its uselittle as possible. So this is one oqualities of an open platform: it is benable, not to control, and it does notsecond-guess the things which will beusing it.The Web is designed, in tum, tuniversal: to include anything and anThis universality. ..has to allow links bedata from any form of life, acadcommercial, private or governmentleave it to others to distinguish these.to be independent of language aculture.The Web worked because of a numbtechnical and social reasons. It wbecause there was no central bottlenectraffic, no central link database to beconsistent, no central place to goregister a new page or a new Web site.


5/7

P2P throttling is discriminatory.Bell Canada recently stated that while it does

eed "throttle" specific P2P applications, only the speedaccess is affected. Bell does not block any data, itrely slows down the transfers and users can still enjoycontent once downloaded.

The user's enjoyment of Internet content isxtricably tied to the speed and quality at which it is

TV services like VUZE, Joost, and Miro offersumers a competitive alternative to the cable andellite distribution channels, which are often operatedthe same company that owns the IP networks in that

e many other Internet video services, VUZE leveragestechnology to deliver high-quality HD content.

wever, because it relies on BitTorrent, VUZE's serviceurrently throttled by Bell Canada.

same time as Bell enabled its harsh throttlingP2P services in the name of a "congestedtwork", it also rolled out its own high-ndwidth video download service, the Bello Store.

l's statement implies that the only noticeableerence between throttled and un-throttled contenthe amount of time the user must wait while theirer completes.while the majority of users who use P2P

lications do so for file downloads, many others relythe technology to stream real-time audio-visual

re is a difference between waiting five hours longerdownload throttled content, and the throttling actually

the user experience: Consider trying to watch

a live 'Peercasted' soccer match that was throttleddegradation is so severe that both the picture andare fragmented. In such an example, the throttlingdistorted the experience that the broadcaster sougconvey.The average consumer-who typically is not informetheir ISP about what services are throttled - indentifiegarbled experience with the capacity of the coproducer to deliver its product.While the current trend in content distribution is todecentralized mechanisms like P2P, the open andchanging nature of the Internet suggests that it is imprto make decisions that will affect how theseapplications will be received in the future.Do we really want an artif icially slow experience to fruthe uptake of an otherwise groundbreaking technologyWe must to ensure that all content owners can delivewares to consumers at speeds which don't hanchances for success-whether it be in terms of increwait times, or a degraded quality of experience.

"We compete with Comcast [an ISP that throttledBitTorrent} with delivery of content over the Internet.What we have here is a horse race and in this contentComcast owns the race track, in fact, the only track intown. They also own a horse. We are being told they areonly slowing down our horse by a few seconds ... studiesshow that if you delay an application, even just a little bit,people will stop using it"- Gilles BianRosa, CEO, VUZE


6/7

They own the networks, but the Internet is ours.Consumers cannot demand that these

rporations continue to expend capital to maintain thetwork while also proscribing certain methods of managingThe wires that carry the world's information are the mostportant part of the Internet and private companies own

Networks are capable of managing the infrastructureout destroying our resource. We should not be trickedbelieving that network management necessarily violates

twork neutrality. In fact, in the US, Comcast recentlymmitted to a "protocol agnostic" means of managing its

ese companies are due no more thanks for investing inastructure than the telephone, hydro, and gas companiest we all do business with. Customers pay for use of thoservices in the same manner as they do for internet access.

Net Neutrality Rally, Parliament Hill. Photograph courtesy of Aero!!

ould be ludicrous to imagine a hydro company chargingpremium to customers who used the service to powerovative appliances, for example refrigerators that alsoensed ice cubes.twork operators should be properly compensated for theirestment in this infrastructure but that is not, however, ason to allow these companies to 'double dip', chargingcustomers for access, and for "enhanced services" likeable access to Face Book.

Today network operators are paid from end usersaccess to content, and from the content host on theend. If network operators get their way, they will be abcharge content providers for priority access to tcustomers, justifying their action by the fallacious argumthat network operators "own" the Internet.But in fact, network operators contribute very little toresource itself. When people refer to the value the Intoffers society, they speak about social websites,Youtube, or collaborative knowledge projects,Wikipedia, or money-saving software technology, like VTo be sure, the companies that own the networks facithe creativity, innovation, and togetherness of the InteHowever, the mere selling of connectivity does not ethese companies to take responsibility for the value osocial resource itself.Because the content transferred to consumers is

typically owned or authored by the service provISPs are often categorized alongside cablesatellite television providers. But the I internetvery different medium than television - many auand owners of content do not create and sharework with the intent of being paid.In fact, some of the best services and contenthe Internet are a wholly supported by zeavolunteerism. Websites like Wikipedia flowithout anyone demanding royalties. Open-soprojects such as Linux or Open Officemaintained on the philosophy that everyone

access, use, and modify the software for free.The Internet is unique. It is critical that network neutbe upheld in public policy. In the absence of suchthe public should expect Canadian network operatorimpose their will on our online choices in order to stheir own narrow financial interests.

OP T H E T H R O T T L E


7/7

1. The CRTC should STOP Bell, Rogers and other Internet Service Providers finterfering with private Internet communications and content (Throttling Traf2. We need to protect innovation, competition, free speech, and Canadian cultby protecting the principle of Net Neutrality and the Internet's level playing fie

3. Canadian government officials should develop and enforce Net Neutrality rthat ensure Canadian Internet users have open accessto applications and conof their choice.

4. We need increased broadband access, competition, transparency and choiceall Canadians.

additional to the above principles, the SaveOurNet.ca coalition calls on the CRTC to carry out net neutrality (ordia more generally) public hearings in cities across the country, so as to afford as many people as possibleportunity to participate. Based on the growing importance of digital media to Canadian culture, the economy anderyday lives of people across Canada; accessible public hearings are necessary to ensure the future ofmmunication system is decided democratically.

P ro tec tin g ou r intemet's le ve l p lay ing fie ld

saveournet.ca fact vs. fiction report

Documents