Guest post by Marci Fuller, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class

Net neutrality—what is it? No really—what is it? I was fortunate to be part of the Discussion Café on Net Neutrality so that this question could be answered.  The first issue that became apparent during our discussion is that net neutrality has yet to become a widely known and understood issue by the general Canadian public.  This was emphasized by the fact that even within our discussion group—consisting of information professionals and students—we spent much of our time clarifying exactly what net neutrality is and what common issues and concerns are associated with net neutrality.  With such a major issue that has the potential to impact all Canadian internet users, it is important that it receives the voice it deserves.

So what do people need to know in order to understand net neutrality? A good place to start is to learn from the questions that we raised in our own discussion so that you can understand what areas of education may need to be addressed when trying to get Canadians to understand this issue.

We first asked Paul Holden, our net neutrality expert, for a recap of the fundamentals of net neutrality and some examples of non-net neutrality (such as the Telus scandal when the company blocked access to a pro-union website during a Telus labour dispute, and when CBC tried to use bit-torrent to disseminate the final episode of the popular TV show Next Great Prime Minister, and download speeds were slowed due to throttling).  These are clear examples of filtering and throttling that were discussed in our group.

Subsequently, questions such as these were asked: What exactly is throttling? What is a bandwidth? What is bit-torrent?  Also discussed was what legislation can be used to stop Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from filtering and throttling, and who has the authority to enforce this? What is the principle of common carriage, and how can it be used to effectively regulate the internet? We also questioned the legitimacy of ISP claims that we are going to run out of bandwidth; if fibre optics is relatively cheap, is it not plausible that more bandwidth access is possible? Is congestion really an issue (i.e., does someone downloading large files really affect the speed of my connection?)?

Although we did not spend a lot of time discussing possible solutions for getting the net neutrality issue out to the general public, there was a general consensus that awareness needs to be raised, particularly to the point where the everyday citizen wants to enact change.

We discussed some of the challenges of getting this message out.  For example, some people may not mind having some of their freedom of online choices taken from them.  However, if you can find reasons that strike a cord with the majority of internet users, you may be able to raise an outcry (possible reasons might be the filtering of internet content or potential loss of access to iTunes or to their favourite live-streaming television programs).  Another challenge is finding a means of bridging technological thresholds—what language can be used to best communicate this issue without getting bogged down in technical jargon?

Hopefully the questions and challenges we raised and discussed provide you with a starting point for your own understanding of net neutrality—and more importantly where to begin when raising the awareness and interest of the general public.  Together we can enact change.

Guest post by Nicole Maunsell, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class.

It was a small group at our telecom policy discussion, as others were lured to the more flashy net neutrality and copyright discussions. At first we weren’t sure we’d have much to say. Turns out we were wrong about that: it’s more exciting than you think. No, really. I can’t tell you all the sexy details (part of our plan to make telecom policy more enticing), so I’ll focus on what I got out of the discussion as a SLAIS student.

We talked about how to raise awareness of the issues, and who might do it. Something as simple as monitoring the CRTC for consultation announcements could be done by one person who wouldn’t necessarily need to be an expert. Because experts in this area are really hard to find. It’s a big, intimidating topic, and as the students in our group reminded us, who has the time?

So the solution is building it into our already overloaded activities. What if advocacy work was taught as part of the core curriculum in library school? After all, we’re told over and over again that advocacy and social activism are reasons we should be proud of our chosen profession. One of our wishlist items that we came up with during the session was a Citizen’s Guide to telecom policy. We believe people would care about these issues if they understood how it affected them. The Citizen’s Guide would have a glossary, illustrative examples, tips on how to take action and an accompanying action plan with recommendations for how to tailor the messages for the vastly different audiences that telecom policy affects. Something like that might take quite awhile, but it could be done as a series of SLAIS professional experiences (library or archival work for course credit). That is, if no one’s willing to find the cash to pay someone to do it, which would be lovely.

It’s a big goal, but a necessary long-term one. In the meantime, anyone want to volunteer to monitor the CRTC and notify BCLA when they have public consultations on issues pertaining to telecom policy?

Guest Post by Emily Tufts of LIBR 561 Information Policy class.

Leslie Shade’s presentation on Telecommunications Policy in Canada echoed many of the insights offered by an article she co-authored in 2008, From the Right to Communicate to Consumer Right of Access.  Shade emphasizes a shift from perceiving individuals as citizens to viewing us as consumers.  This shift accompanies a general trend towards neo-liberalism and its attendant ideology of free markets and deregulation.  However, the rhetoric of competition and increased consumer choice serves only to obscure the reality – that the Canadian telecommunications industry is actually an oligopoly.  Free from competition and the constraints of government policy protecting the public good, Canadian telecom giants like Bell, Telus and Rogers can busy themselves developing profitable technological infrastructure at the expense of the more intangible, social infrastructure.

The concept of “Skimming the Crème” in Telecommunications is of particular concern in Canada, a vast country with a small and geographically dispersed population.  Shade’s presentation highlighted the telecom practice of delivering “Fiber to the Rich” in the form of broadband internet service to profitable zones, such as affluent neighbourhoods.  I see this idea extending to include not only a rich/poor digital divide, but also an important urban/rural divide.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2001 more than 6 million Canadians, 20% of our nation’s population, lived outside of urban centres. (Stats Canada, 2001)  This 20% of the population often live without access to high-speed internet connectivity.  Indeed, my own experience growing up in rural Ontario highlights this problem.  On a farm only 2 hours from Toronto, my family continues to rely on dial-up connectivity for their web access.  This discrepancy in service can be explained by the low profit margins in rural areas for Telecom providers.  With a sparse population of potential subscribers, and the high cost of installing cable infrastructure in remote and often rugged terrain, there is little impetus for providers to serve the Canadian hinterland.

The consequences for rural and northern citizens are numerous.  Firstly, citizens are limited professionally.  Telecommuting, virtual conferencing, and simply emailing attached files are constrained by limited broadband connectivity.  Secondly, our children, the future citizens and leaders of our nation, are limited educationally.  Northern and rural schools without high-speed connectivity cannot provide their students with access to the wealth of learning materials available on the web.  While the internet theoretically provides access to a world of information, without high-speed internet connections, students are still limited to what is available within the walls of their classrooms.  Finally, citizens are limited democratically.  Without the ability to access and share information, citizens cannot be informed and public debate around issues of importance is silenced.

The tendency to frame telecommunications policy in terms of industry and consumerism rather than in terms of democracy and citizenship is problematic.  The public interest, without the protection of government regulation and policy, is eroded by the profit motives of the telecom giants.  Without a strong and vocal lobby for universal broadband access across Canada, the telecommunications industry will continue to put profits before people.  In response to the problem of limited broadband connectivity, the Harper Conservatives have pledged to spend $500 million to bring high speed internet access to rural Canadians.  (CBC News Story) (Conservative Party Website) One wonders, though, whether the promise of universal high speed access by 2016 will be too late for Canadians.

Part 1 – The Facts

The second speaker in the first morning session at Jumpstarting the Public Sphere: Information Policy for the 21st Century was York University’s, David Skinner. His talk, “Medi-Ated: What’s on the Menu for Canada’s Big Media”? addressed some of the major issues surrounding the concentration of media ownership in Canada. Dr. Skinner is on the steering committee of the Campaign for a Democratic Media.

He began by setting the context within which media concentration arose. Canada traditionally has had three distinct and recognizable media ownership models: Government, Community, and Private. According to Dr. Skinner the market driven neo-liberal economic model and the commoditization of information has in more resent years fostered an environment that allows corporations to gain control over vast sectors of the Canadian media market. The corporations have been able to make a case that the other two sectors of media engage in exclusionary practices that undermine free market competition. In this way private corporations have managed to squeeze into sectors of the news media that had previously been unavailable. Remaining regulations concerning media ownership have little impact upon the reality either. In Canada all news media is owned and controlled by only three corporations. The worst is BC where 100% of the media is controlled by one corporation, CanWest.
The tri-opoly of corporate media interests have essentially divided up the market amongst themselves through horizontal ownership, vertical integration and cross-ownership even though the CRTC has recently moved (yet again) to limit cross-ownership. In fact two, CTV-globemedia and CanWest of the “big three” media dynasties in Canada dominate the national media market. Dr. Skinner talked about how this concentration is limiting the perspective of the media and negatively impacting the diversity of voices and opinions being disseminated.

Limits to perspective come from editorial interference. Instances of editorial interference can limit opinion and fact alike. Many times editors are afraid, especially in profit driven corporate sectors of losing advertisement or sponsorship and therefore refuses to run a piece or requires that the journalist alter it. The trade-off (less accurate or honest reporting) is justified by the market (keep advertisement or sponsorship).
The corporate buy-up of media has also lessened the diversity and localness of information. As companies acquire each other, the number of employees and other staff are cut. This leads to the mass syndication of a few journalists and a vacuum in communities of local coverage.

As mentioned previously the CRTC’s regulatory control of media is weak and has little impact on the erosion of government and community media at the hands of the corporate free market. With this in mind Dr. Skinner finished his talk with ideas about what is and can be done in order to restore balance to the media diet in Canada. He focused on citizen participation as a remedy for the affliction of media concentration in Canada. His 5 prong approach is simple:

1) Let the CRTC know that the rules that are in place are inadequate

2) Lobby for Canadian ownership rules not to be changed

3) Demand public and community media be included on basic cable and by satellite providers

4) Promote independent and alternative media

5) Support public interest groups that focus on media reform – like The Campaign for a Democratic Media

Part 2 – A small observation and a question

Dr. Skinner mentioned that the internet as a tool could prove helpful in assisting to balance media in the face of the overwhelming concentration that is taking place in print and TV. He praises the power of the internet for distribution but is perhaps uncomfortable with the lack of production that takes place. Because of this he showed great reservations about the use of this medium by “citizen journalists” in an effort to democratize the media. His opinion was that citizen journalists merely fill a gap and “lack the time and skill to create comprehensive work.” Therefore, he concluded that the best actions to take are ones aimed at systems correction.

However, if a long range plan is adapted to insure citizen journalists have these “skills” and presumably the time to cover the news then wouldn’t this be a more truly democratic model of media? Should perhaps some of the focus be placed in those areas? What about things like pirate radio, zines, blogs, and other non-mainstream methods of disseminating information - which makes possible all other rights.

Guest post by Suher Zaher-Mazawi, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class.

Ellen Gould’s session on trade agreements was an eye opening presentation which underlined issues that have direct implications for libraries. Although the presentation was limited in time, Gould managed to passionately provide the audience with an overview on international trade agreements such as NAFTA and discuss their risks and restrictions on the public policy space. The focus of her presentation was mainly on the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) < http://www.tilma.ca > between the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta, which came into effect in April 2007 and which will be fully implemented in April 2009. She discussed the effects of TILMA on public libraries.

According to Gould, “TILMA goes beyond WTO/NAFTA”. She further explained that “unlike NAFTA, individuals can sue and get compensation under almost all of TILMA’s provisions”. This results from the power within TILMA to eliminate any obstacles to trade and investment between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. TILMA, often referred to as the “gold standard”, supersedes other existing and new regulations that challenge and restrict trade or investment. As a result, regulations have to be reconciled between the two provinces. This means that business will no longer receive government assistance and no additional training can be required of workers from across the border.

As public institutions, libraries should be aware and concerned about the implications of TILMA and the risks it creates on libraries. According to TILMA, governments cannot pose any obstacles to private investments. As well, all purchases of goods over $10,000 have to be tendered. These are challenges that conflict with what libraries do. Since TILMA does not clearly refer to libraries and provides no exceptions to protect libraries, it is not clear whether our public programs are considered a risk on investment or not. Issues such as culture and access to information are also beyond TILMA’s consideration.

Another major concern for libraries is the issue of procurements and tendering. Based on TILMA, all purchases of goods over $10,000 must be tendered. Libraries currently tender contracts over $10,000 for different purposes including the purchase of books.

Does that mean that libraries no longer can directly purchase books from local vendors? Or send their books to the local bindery?

Furthermore, based on the Memorandum of Understanding between the two provinces on Post-Secondary Education, which justifies cooperation in research and information sharing, how would this affect academic libraries in the area of distance education programs, research and data initiatives, as well as programming?

Gould concluded her talk with metaphor describing trade agreements, whether international or national, as “lions in the grass”. She explains that we all need to get together to “chase them from our territory”.

The big message for libraries in BC (as well as in Alberta), is that there need to be a concerted effort to place exemptions from the TILMA agreement as far as libraries are concerned, or institute safeguards. If the BC municipalities managed to get zoning exemptions, libraries can do it too!

Here at the BCLA Info Policy blog, we’re going to have some guests in the coming week.  The students in LIBR 561: Information Policy at SLAIS are all attending the Jumpstarting the Public Sphere: Information Policy Issues for the 21st Century conference Oct 23-24 at Vancouver Public Library.

All of our cool and keen students are going to be blogging part of the conference, and putting their posts here as guest posters.  Keep your eyes out for them in the next week or so!

Interesting article from BBC - excerpt:

The Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari Archive has been developed by a community based in Australia’s Northern Territory.

It asks every person who logs in for their name, age, sex and standing within their community.

This information then restricts what they can search for in the archive, offering a new take on DRM

Dr Kimberly Christen, who helped to develop the archive, told BBC World Service’s Digital Planet programme that the need to create these profiles came from community traditions over what can and cannot be seen.

“It grew out of the Warumungu community people themselves, who were really interested in repatriating a lot of images and things that had been taken from the community,” she said.

“You find this a lot in indigenous communities, not just in Australia but around the world… this really big push in these communities to get this information back and let people start looking at it and narrating it themselves.”

Thanks to slashdot via Mark Jordan on Digitization Blog

Tuesday October 14th is the First International Open Access Day! More than 100 organizations are taking part.

Did you know that BCLA is recognized on Peter Suber’s Open Access Timeline as one of the first library associations in the world to adopt a Resolution on Open Access (in 2004)?

Correction note:  October 14 is Tuesday, not Monday as previously posted.  Thanks, Tara!

Update: STM is the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.  Here is their website:  http://www.stm-assoc.org/

The STM publishing industry is worth about $5 billion annually (according to a study commissioned by STM, by Mark Ware, which can be found on their website).  So if these folks have an opinion on copyright and libraries, they have some rather substantial resources to lobby for their point of view.  The $5 billion pretty much comes from academic library budgets, with a small percentage from special libraries budgets and another small percentage from advertising.  So in a roundabout way, we could be paying for lobbying efforts to eliminate library exemptions under copyright.  (Tara, thanks for asking the question).

Libraries and the educational community should take note of the STM Digital copyright exceptions and limitations for scholarly publications in the education and research communities
(Position paper of the International Association of STM Publishers), available for download from here.

In brief, the position of STM is that because education is their primary market, there is no reason for education and research to be considered a “certain special case” under the Berne convention. There is no reason to allow interlibrary loan, for example, if items are available for purchase. STM recommends licensing contracts with fewer rights than are available to libraries and educational institutions under copyright law.

The Basic Principles begins with:
STM publishers prepare and distribute their materials (scholarly and scientific journals, books and databases) for and into the research and education communities, communities that therefore constitute their most significant audiences and markets.

Comment: these arguments sound very similar to the ludicrous Conyers bill in the U.S. The basic principles imply that STM publishers are alone responsible for preparing and distributing materials. This is not correct. A great deal of the research that is published by STM publishers is paid for through publicly funded research agencies; the articles themselves are written by authors who are not paid for their work, and reviewed by peer reviewers who are not paid for their work, either. The contributions of STM publishers are real, and of value, but only a small proportion of the total resources that go into the works that they publish.

Authors - retain your rights!

Free Culture is an interesting Creative Commons licensed, game by Molleindustria where you fight to keep information in the commons.  Occasionally the evil copyright pac-man like mechanical villain swoops around the outside and gobbles up information. They describe this game as “a game about the struggle between free culture and copyright. Create and defend the common knowledge from the vectorial class. Liberate the passive consumers from the domain of the market.”

According to some commenters on the Creative Commons blog, it is possible to win. I am not that patient.  I found the same play too repetitive, but maybe that’s the point.  It’s a long, repetitive slog to keep information freely accessible for everyone.

I like the statement describing who Molleindustria is:

Molleindustria is an italian team of artists, designers and programmers that aims at starting a serious discussion about social and political implications of videogames. This will involve media activists, net-artists, habitual players and critics and detractors of videogames. We chose to start with online gaming in order to sidestep mainstream distribution channels and to overcome our lack of means. Using simple but sharp games we hope to give a starting point for a new generation of critical game developers and, above all, to experiment with practices that can be easily emulated and virally diffused.

This game is safe for work, but some of their other games, are likely not appropriate to play at work.

Thanks Jen Crothers for the tip!