Photo of Kate by tris on Flickr

Check out Kate Milberry’s blog: Geeks & Global Justice: Researching tech activism in the global justice movement.  Her latest post is about net neutrality in Canada.

Kate describes herself:

I am a social justice activist, doctoral student, and mama living and working in Vancouver, BC. I go to school at Simon Fraser University, and I work under the American philosopher of technology, Andrew Feenberg. In a nutshell, I’m interested in figuring out ways to make a better world. Right now, I’m studying how activists in the global justice movement appropriate technology to achieve their social justice goals. Tech activism has (at least) three simultaneous outcomes: it democratizes technology, it develops democratic practice and it produces an alternative vision of society.

I enjoy her style of accessible and fiesty writing, as well as her perspectives on technology, open source software, open access publishing and feminism.  I also respect that she’s not cloistered academic pretending to objectively study activism.  She’s in the community living her politics and sharing her ideas with folks.  I like that she’s planing on sharing her PhD thesis on a wiki and inviting people to edit, change, or correct her work.

Guest post by Katherine Siddle, of the SLAIS LIBR 561 Information Policy class.

Paul Holden spoke on net neutrality issues in Canada at the BCLA’s information policy conference October 24. As a professional software engineer, Holden brings a technical perspective to this issue.

Holden defines net neutrality as the transmission of data on the internet without discrimination regarding content, destination, file type, application or protocols. Net neutrality ensures a “free” internet, where users can access, buy, do, and use almost anything they want. Since no task, user, or content is privileged above any other, the net is equitable (and therefore “neutral”).

Historically, net neutrality has been the norm in Canada. Service providers have lacked the technical ability to interfere with service, and as a result, Canada has no policies on net neutrality. However, Holden identified “creeping anti-neutral behaviors” sparked by providers’ desire to extract revenue from bandwidth services, and their newfound ability to restrict access.

Holden described two technical anti-neutral techniques:

1. Preferential treatment or traffic shaping

This approach has largely faded, as providers have had difficulty arguing in its favour.

2. Throttling (targeting data and limiting bandwidth)

Providers often argue in favour of using throttling to manage internet congestion (too many users using the network at the same time). However, Holden maintains that there are other ways of dealing with this problem.

Holden also offered two examples of anti-neutral behavior:

1. Comcast’s targeting of BitTorrent traffic in 2007.

2. Bell Canada’s “upstream throttling”

Holden warns that the results of a non-neutral network produces the same results as a censored network. A non-neutral networks is more dangerous, though, because arguments against throttling are harder to make and less established than arguments against censorship. Users, he warns, become casualties of service provider’s business models. A non-neutral internet may be a threat to our civil liberties and re-build the barriers to publishing and communications that the internet’ has previously lowered.

For more information on Net Neutrality (and suggestions for pro-neutral action) see www.saveournet.ca

Paul Holden is the Vice President of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (BC FIPA), a non-partisan, non-profit society. FIPA was established in 1991 to promote and defend freedom of information and privacy rights in Canada.

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.

Photo credit: teemow on Flickr

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic has set up a wiki listing legitimate uses of peer to peer file sharing.

Cory Doctorow  on Boing Boing writes:

Alarmed that Bell Canada is throttling and degrading P2P traffic, David Fewer and some of his friends have created a wiki to list “all of the legitimate things that P2P can and is doing. Kind of a one stop shop for evidence of how this technology has the capacity to change the world.” The idea is that this can be used in regulatory proceedings and other policy fora to establish the legitimacy of P2P. They want your input!

Here’s the backgrounder I pulled together for the BCLA Resolution on Network (Net) Neutrality. A great debt is owed to Danielle Dennie (of LibrarianActivist fame) for her assistance in writing both the resolution and this backgrounder.

Net Neutrality in a Nutshell:
Backgrounder for the BCLA AGM, April 19, 2008

What is “Net Neutrality”?
Network (“Net”) Neutrality is “the principle that all information that is sent over the Internet should be treated equally.” This means that:

• Internet Service Providers (ISPs, like Telus, Shaw, Rogers or Bell) shouldn’t interfere in web content getting to you
• All sites and formats should be treated the same by ISPs
• Users are free to go where they want on the Internet, and access whatever information they wish

Who is opposed to Net Neutrality, and why?
The primary opponents of regulation to require net neutrality are telecommunications and cable companies. They argue that they need the ability to block or filter their networks in order to prevent illegal file sharing, viruses and spam, and congestion due to bandwidth-intensive traffic (such as video streaming). Net neutrality regulation would also prevent ISPs from levying surcharges on users or content providers who want premium (fast or equal) access to their networks.

Who supports Net Neutrality, and why?
The National Union of Public and General Employees (which represents more than 340,000 workers across the country), the Council of Canadians, the Campaign for Democratic Media, and the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, and the Independent Film and Television Alliance, to name a few. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage also raised concerns about non-neutrality’s impact on Canadian heritage, in their recent report.

Primary arguments for net neutrality are that both the Internet and Canadian Telecommunications Policy rely on the principle of “common carriage” – that public networks shouldn’t discriminate among content. Supporters of net neutrality don’t want to see the Internet run by a bidding war, with fast access sold to the highest bidder. As Michael Geist warns, “imagine a world in which Chapters cannot compete in the online book space because its content is on the slow lane while Amazon is on the fast lane.” That is a world without net neutrality.

What are some examples of non-neutrality?
Non-neutrality is often likened to a highway with a toll fast lane for content providers who pay a premium, and a regular slow lane for the rest of us. Here are just a few exampled of violations of net neutrality in Canada:

• During the 2005 Telus labour dispute, Telus blocked its internet subscribers from accessing a website that supported striking union members (and 766 unrelated sites with the same IP address)
• In 2006, Vonage filed a request for a CRTC investigation because Shaw was privileging its own VoIP service by charging a $10 fee to customers who use another company’s VoIP service
• This March, the CBC decided to use BitTorrent to distribute an episode of Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister. When ISP “throttling” (deliberately slowing high-bandwidth activities) made the download of this show excessively long, Bell and Rogers Communications’ practice of “traffic shaping” came to the public’s attention – and that of smaller ISPs who buy wholesale access from the big ISPs.

Do any existing laws or regulations pertain to Net Neutrality?
The principle of Common Carriage is enshrined in Canada’s Telecommunications Act (1993), Sec. 27(2): “No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.”

But in 1999 the CRTC decided that regulating the Internet was beyond its scope. The CRTC is currently reviewing its jurisdiction over new media and their report should be released in May. Several organizations and individuals are filing submissions to the CRTC this spring, and there is a call for public hearings on the issue.

This video is one of the best explanations of net neutrality that I’ve seen. Look past the American images or fill in Canadian phone and cable companies and substitute the House of Commons for Congress and it’s describes what’s happening in Canada.

“You connect to the web through pipes owned by telephone and cable companies, but the deal is they’re not allowed to mess with what’s inside those pipes…everybody’s website gets the same speed and quality, that’s called Net Neutrality”

Check out Devon Greyson’s resolution on net neutrality.

Also, check out the Stop the Throttler campaign that is drawing attention to Bell and Rodger’s practice of restricting bandwidth on downloading. Join the Facebook group, if that’s your thing.

Finland’s initiative to block access to child porn sites is also blocking over 1,000 legitimate websites — including one belonging to a vocal critic of Finnish censorship.

The initiative is the result of a law passed in 2006 to filter foreign sites containing child porn. Finland’s national police force maintains a secret list of sites that contain, or link to, content that they consider to be child porn. When they find a site, they add its IP address to their list — thus blocking, not only the offending site, but also any other sites on the same web server. (For more details, check out this excellent overview of the censorship process.)

“But that’s Finland,” you’re thinking. “Who cares about Finland?”

Alas, much the same thing happens in Canada. Project Cleanfeed manages a list of sites that it classifies as child porn. The list is kept secret from the general public, but the major Canadian ISPs — Shaw, Telus, Rogers, Bell, MTS Allstream, SaskTel, and Videotron — all use it to filter your Internet access.

There are all sorts of problems with the project. The group that manages Project Cleanfeed has a good reputation, but as Cory Doctorow has pointed out, secret lists are ripe for abuse. (Remember, the Finnish police are using a very similar process to block a vocal critic of their censorship practices.) There is an appeal process, but it’s overseen by the same organization that blocked the site in the first place, and you can’t appeal if you don’t know that your site is on the secret list.

The ISPs’ participation also sets a bad precedent, since it means that they are acting as monitors of site content, rather than as neutral common carriers. And if they’re already blocking some types of content, what’s to stop them from blocking other types of content? In fact, as I understand it, by violating their own neutrality, they may be legally liable for their failure to block other types of illegal or objectionable content. For those of us who support net neutrality, this is obviously of some concern.

(I wrote about Project Cleanfeed in more detail on my personal blog back in 2006, when the project first got underway.)