Friday, November 14, 2008

 

Geist on New Media

I was having trouble understanding Michael Geist's article that appeared in various papers this past week [Toronto Star version, Geist web version].

On Wednesday, I pointed out the problem with his allegation that "many Canadian ISPs" are fiddling around with customers' traffic on the basis of the content.

I have read the article a few times and I was not sure if I understood the proposal. At first blush, it seemed that he is calling for a deeper level of deep packet inspection than anything employed by carriers today. He seemed to be proposing that, if traffic shaping is to become a fact of life, then ISPs should agree to give Canadian content a free pass to un-managed bandwidth as their "Internet equivalent of cultural funding."
As ISPs move toward tiered access that grants preferential treatment (such as faster speeds) to their own content or to premium content promoted by deep-pocketed interests, an equal opportunity approach to new media content would effectively bring Cancon into the Internet era by asking for nothing more than a fair shake.
The implementation of a regime that might need to examine all new media content for a Canadian content flag in order to be awarded 'safe passage' is of great concern and was the subject of some of the comments on his blog. So he provided a clarification by way of a reply comment:
I am an advocate of net neutrality and this is a call for net neutrality. The piece argues for the promotion of the Canadian content by treating all content equally.
So, there must have been a hidden meaning to the article.

With this clarification, he seems to be suggesting that net neutrality would be the solution to providing incentives to stimulate access to Canadian content, as if providing unfettered access to all content is enough of an incentive to promote Canadian content.

How does net neutrality provide a promotion of Canadian content?

Is the root of this proposal the unfounded presumption that any ISP is treating traffic differently on the basis of content?

Professor Geist will be speaking at the Public Policy Forum session on net neutrality in Ottawa next week. I suspect we will hear more about this proposal there.

Technorati Tags:
,

Comments:
Two issues here. First, in the UK it has already been proposed to provide 'priority access' to those companies who pay a premium fee. All others, including smaller companies and startups, would thus be reduced to the 'slow lane'. Distinguishing between source and content in this context is irrelevant. All content from company X is slowed down, all content from company Y is unfettered.

Second, the communication protocols used also distinguish between sources. BitTorrent is used as a low-cost way to distribute content, for example, and could be used by new or poorly funded providers. But this may compete with some commercial video streaming services. If the video streaming is given unfettered access, but the BT protocol is curtailed, again we have all content from Company X transiting freely, while Company Y is extremely hindered.
 
BitTorrent does not compete with commercial or any other form of streaming content service - audio, video or information. It is a file transfer system.

There is a difference between source, application and content. The distinction is relevant in discussing net neutrality in a meaningful way without this digressing into a game of Calvinball.
 
The distinction between source, application (or communication channel) and content is more tenuous than you are claiming. Neat lines cannot be drawn between them.

Sure, we can define them as very separate concepts, but they are very interdependent. For example, any given source is going to use a particular communication channel or application to deliver its content. Any decision by an ISP as to which communication channels or applications are 'allowed' or prioritized has a direct impact on the economic feasibility of a given content source.

NN advocates are pushing for a simple concept: ISPs don't get to decide which content, applications, communication channels, or sources get priority over another. Indiscriminate, unmonitored, unaccountable, and unregulated 'management' of network traffic is simply unacceptable.

We simply will not tolerate this bullying behaviour from the likes of Bell & Rogers.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?