It is worth nothing that Canada has always (in Internet time) had
"undue" preference rules. This is section 27(2) of the
Telecommunications Act in Canada, and it is the basis for current CRTC
Net Neutrality rules (which apply to wireless too).
It states:
“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.“
This clause has proven nearly meaningless. We still protest on the
hill. We still have bill C-552. We still have throttling. The 'undue'
language used for wireline in the Google proposal is strikingly similar
to our undue preference, which isn't Network Neutrality at all. This
language has already run through an interpretation process north of the
border, and the result isn't impressive.
The required language would have been:
"Network operators shall not engage in network management practices
that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service
transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership or
destination." - from Bill C-552.
>From the .ca perspective, this change in policy if applied to Google
Canada, would not only abandon a quest for stronger Net Neutrality
regulation, but actually weaken our current wireless regulation and
legitimize differentiated services, for which the primary competitive
issue is VoIP vs cable delivered 'digital phone'. Google is a global
company, and its actions with Verizon in the US may very well represent
their world policy. If this is the case, then Canadians are more than
rightfully outraged.
So much so that the NDP, the party that introduced our net neutrality
bill has already come out saying:
“Innovation isn’t going to be served by claiming that only some content
belongs in the realm of the ‘public’ internet,” “There is no such thing
as a ‘public’ or a ‘private’ internet. There is only digital content.
And all this content must be treated in the same way.”
Source:
http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-say-google-verizon-deal-not-for-canada
For your digest, from north of the border,
Kevin McArthur
On 10-08-12 03:59 PM, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
Civility, Neutrality, and Google
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000743.html
Greetings. It's now four days since Google and Verizon published
their joint policy proposal for an open Internet
( http://bit.ly/cpO0bU [Google Public Policy Blog] ). Today, Google
posted an additional document, addressing what they view as the
misconceptions being promulgated in various negative reactions to the
plan ( http://bit.ly/aQKmQV [Google Public Policy Blog] ).
I am extremely disappointed.
However, my disappointment is not with Google, nor Verizon. I applaud
the willingness of both firms to put forth their public proposal.
Rather, I am disappointed -- no, that's not a strong enough word --
I'm mortified -- by the level of vitriol, obnoxiousness, obscenity,
and emotionally-laden, hyperbole-saturated rhetoric that is
characterizing many of the negative responses to the proposal.
Most of this abuse appears to be heaped on Google, not Verizon --
perhaps reflecting the fact that most pro-Net-Neutrality groups have
not held ISPs in particularly high esteem to begin with.
So Google is attracting the lion's share of attacks related to
displeasure over the proposal. Calls of "They sold us out!" --
"They've gone evil!" -- "Google joins the Dark Side" -- and so on --
are mild compared to various of the obscenity-laced tirades that have
been appearing in some venues.
I'm about as solid a proponent of Net Neutrality and Open Internet
concepts as you'll find anywhere. I like some aspects of the
Google/Verizon proposal, but I do have significant disagreements with
aspects of the plan, particularly relating to elements associated with
the suggested handling of wireless broadband and new differentiated
online services.
As I noted a couple of days ago ( http://bit.ly/9DXq69 [Lauren's Blog] ),
it's clear that the Google/Verizon proposal -- and that's all it
is -- concepts for consideration -- is largely the result of completely
understandable, prolonged frustration at the dangerously vacuous
status quo in the U.S. Internet broadband universe.
As far as I'm concerned, this policy debate -- regardless of where you
personally stand regarding the specific issues themselves -- is well
served by straightforward public proposals like the one from Google
and Verizon. The reasoned discussions that such proposals can foster
are likely to be among the most important key components of any real,
positive progress on these crucial matters.
But if the reward for publicly putting forth such concepts in good
faith is mostly characterized by malevolent histrionic reactions --
rather than logical consideration of actual technical and policy
effects -- we risk relegating broadband, Internet policies to the same
virulent cesspool of political gamesmanship that has paralyzed the
U.S. on other important issues ranging from immigration to civil
liberties.
We must approach these matters with our brains, not our hormones --
with civility, not vulgarity. The former approaches may feel
viscerally satisfying for a short time -- but they can generally be
depended upon not to lead us toward solutions, but rather to march us
right off the cliff.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
|