Network neutrality, bandwidth shaping, megabits, the FCC, and the CRTC. NN is a confusing, acronym heavy mess that’s ill understood by policy makers and consumers alike (the FCC doesn’t get it). The simple image below explains it nicely.
Right now, its implicit that our choice of internet provider (Shaw) doesn’t impact our choice of, for example, news source – i.e.: I can open either the Globe and Mail or the National Post websites (or the BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.), and any will open with comparable speed. The proponents of network neutrality argue that if this “equal treatment” assumption isn’t codified into regulation, providers like Shaw are going to eventually seek to monetize their ability to control the traffic that they deliver – to consumer’s detriment. For example – what if Microsoft offered to pay Shaw XX million dollars to make Bing the only search engine available to Shaw customers at a certain price point?
Image Credit: AppleInsider
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
It is certainly true that the average folk didn’t anticipate this but it is not really a surprise. I think we need to remember that access to the internet is a privilege and not a right. It is really no surprise that internet providers haven’t gone this way sooner. A choice of internet plans that includes bandwidth/speed/networks is on the horizon and I don’t think there is reason for our government to fight it.
The whole of the internet is not technically part of the commons nor has previous media before it so perhaps the only case the Government and NGOs need to argue for is threshold between censorship and corporate alliance. Just as the rural community will have less available in its consumer options so can the internet be shaped. The rural merchant is not censoring what his consumers can purchase, per se, but is making a good business decision based on the costs of doing business and the incentives offered to them by their corporate partners.
Does “the government” have the capacity to manage the complaints/concerns for mis-management by big business to define the line between censorship and ROI?
I can see the porn lobby groups breaking down doors over this one ahead of community groups.