Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Keep the net neutral

The thing about news is that it’s supposed to be upsetting. We’re supposed to know about wars and plagues and famines because we’re supposed to care about our fellow human beings.

The thing about news is that it’s supposed to be upsetting. We’re supposed to know about wars and plagues and famines because we’re supposed to care about our fellow human beings. However, for every BBC World News and The Economist out there, there seem to be a dozen Fox News/National Post clones that are tainted by their corporate ties and political points of view. Real news almost doesn’t exist anymore.

The good news is that the web has restored some semblance of democracy to the media by allowing non-establishment news organizations (e.g. news blogs, user-powered link sites) to compete on a level playing field with the biggest organizations. If you know where to look, it’s not that hard to get the real story and alternative points of view.

The bad news is that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — the same crack organization that fined CBS half a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s infamous wardrobe malfunction at the 2004 Super Bowl — may once again tilt the playing field in favour of corporations.

In the U.S., the FCC is currently weighing a proposal that would allow Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to charge website owners based on the number of visitors they attract, the amount of bandwith used during those visits, and for the speed of their service. Currently, U.S. law dictates the ISPs have to provide the same service to everybody without discrimination, with the goal of allowing non-profits, educational institutions, and others free and open access to the web.

It’s a little like buying an unlimited bus pass — everybody pays the same to use the transit system, no matter how often they ride or how big a knapsack they carry. This basic principle has been applied to the web under a set of laws and regulations that provide for “net neutrality.”

Now imagine being charged extra by the bus driver when you take 40 trips in a month instead of 30, or paying a higher fare if you want to bring your snowboard onto the bus. That’s kind of what the ISPs are looking to do.

While the FCC regulates the web, it’s the ISPs who make the investment in fibre optic cables, switches, servers, wireless antennas, and other infrastructure to keep the information moving. Based on that level of investment they believe they should be able to charge websites for the burden they place on that infrastructure. An online pine furniture store attracts far less traffic and uses a lot less bandwith than a site like YouTube, so they want YouTube to pay more.

The ISPs may get their wish. The public consultation period at the FCC over the proposed rule changes closed last week, and many believe that the FCC board — including executive members appointed by the current administration — will kowtow to corporate wishes.

The issue of primary concern is the impact that the expected ruling will likely have on non-profits, non-corporate news, popular blogs like DailyKos, and free community sites like Craigslist, Facebook, Flickr, and others.

Will Google have to pay the ISPs a surcharge every time you use their search engine, and if so how will they recoup that money? By placing banner ads on every page? By putting more emphasis on search results from paid sponsors and partners of the ISPs?

A bigger worry is the potential that ISPs will use the rule changes to effectively silence views that conflict with those held by their corporate owners, or any criticism of the owners themselves. Net Neutrality guarantees free speech, while the opposite scenario means you have to pay to have your say.

The trouble is that the ISPs are not exactly neutral themselves. For example, Time Warner owns CNN, Warner Bros. Studios and Television, Time Magazine, CompuServe, AOL.com, MapQuest, and part of Amazon.com, not to mention dozens of other networks, publications, and internet holdings. We’re supposed to believe that one unit of Time Warner is completely separate and impartial when dealing with other units — that if you search AOL.com for information you won’t just get a bunch of links to Time Warner properties.

The net neutrality issue has not come to the forefront in Canada yet, but ISPs are already bringing the issue up at the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). They propose billing customers based on usage rather than flat fees, which makes sense given the fact that too few popular websites are actually based in Canada to make them pay for usage.

In Canada, CanWest Global Communications owns the National Post, Southam Publications, the Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Province, Victoria-Times Colonist, the Global Television Network, Canada.com, and dozens of other properties. Rogers Communications owns dozens of radio stations, Maclean’s Magazine, Canadian Business Magazine, Rogers Wireless, Microcell Telecommunications, Rogers Telecom, Rogers Video, Rogers Cable, and dozens of other properties.

You can actually see who owns what in the media consolidation game at the Columbia Journalism Review, www.cjr.org/resources .

Luckily Canadians and the CRTC will have some time to watch what happens in the U.S. before the debate gets underway here — time that Net Neutrality proponents can use to shore up their case for free speech.