I’ve been listening to the Alex Jones show for a while now; some comments made I didn’t feel were relevent to Canada, since his focus is, understandably, on the US. So when I heard him talking about the censorship of the Internet, I was ready to discount it. Especially since I’m in Canada and we seem to take freedom of speech more seriously than our neighbours to the south.
Earlier this week, I came across an op-ed piece in my local paper by Catherine Rosenberg. Ms. Rosenberg is a professor at the University of Waterloo in the Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering. The title (if you’re interested in looking it up) was It’s time to shed some light on Internet traffic control. At first glance I thought she was going to promote the freeflow of information on the Internet and oppose ISP controls over traffic. Was I wrong!
The approach to the issue taken by Rosenberg is one where she approves of traffic controls so that information can continue to flow freely and problems on the “pipe” can be more clearly identified. As she says,
… if individual users see degradations in their level of service when downloading a movie, are those degradations due to the ISP, the carrier used by the ISP, another carrier ‘along the path,’ the server at the end, the user’s own PC (or phone) or a piece of software in the PC? Are they due to a failure in an intermediate node, a malicious attack by a third party, congestion somewhere along the path or a specific action taken – for example traffic shaping – along that path?
In May of this year (2008), the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) applied for relief with the CRTC regarding Bell Canada’s practice of “throttling” its wholesale ADSL access services. It would seem that Ma Bell was slowing down or in effect stopping the flow of traffic on its system.
The following is taken from the CRTC’S decision declining the application:
CAIP submitted that its application raised the following issues that met the threshold for a serious issue to be determined:
- Bell Canada was imposing unauthorized and unilateral modifications to its tariffed services on its wholesale customers, contrary to sections 24 and 25 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act);
- Bell Canada had failed to provide notice of network changes;
- Bell Canada was granting undue and unreasonable preference on itself and was applying a disadvantage to competitors, in violation of section 27(2) of the Act; and
- Bell Canada was violating privacy and common carrier obligations, contrary to sections 7 and 36 of the Act.
Bell Canada submitted that CAIP’s request for interim relief did not satisfy the evidentiary threshold for a serious issue to be determined. Bell Canada submitted that
a) it was not operating off tariff, contrary to sections 24 and 25 of the Act;
b) it was not granting undue and unreasonable preference on itself nor applying a disadvantage to competitors in violation of section 27(2) of the Act; and
c) it was not affecting end-users’ privacy nor controlling the content nor influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications as set out at section 36 of the Act.The Commission notes that the threshold for a finding that there is a serious question to be tried is a low one. The issue is whether or not the application for final relief is frivolous or vexatious. Based on the record, the Commission is satisfied that CAIP has demonstrated that there is a serious issue to be determined regarding whether Bell Canada’s practice of throttling Internet traffic carried by CAIP’s members subscribing to the GAS tariff is in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2008/dt2008-39.htm#n1
The reason I bring up this CRTC decision is that Rosenberg argues that traffic controls are necessary and needed. She says that
The founding principle of the Internet is resource sharing and hence to deliver an appropriate end-to-end service, some level of coordination and traffic control is needed to ensure network performance does not collapse.
She goes on further to say that controlling the traffic means
“keeping the traffic entering the network under a certain threshold to avoid performance collapses that would affect everyone. And this is what traffic shaping does, by limiting the bandwidth available for certain types of applications that are less time sensitive in order to keep more bandwidth available for other applications that are more time sensitive and used by the greater number of subscribers.”
In fact all this would do is begin our journey down the slippery slope of Internet censorship. Who will take on the responsibility to decision what applications are to override others?
Rosenberg does say that
“…each operator should be allowed to implement its own network philosophy and to compete freely for customers as they exert some measure of traffic control, but they should be transparent in explaining what their philosophy and guiding principles are. For example, are they shaping peer-to-peer traffic, or are they focused on a certain type of users or behaviours? Having the answers to such questions and moving forward in an open and transparent environment, customers will be able to make informed decisions about what they need, what they want and what they are willing to pay for.”
This sounds very reasonable, doesn’t it? However this is were the crux of the problem is. Imagine if you will that your ISP provider CEO is a born-again Christian who is anti-gun, anti-drugs and anti-freedom of speech. They would be able to limit your access to the Internet based on their own belief system, in fact forcing their own beliefs and system of morals on you. To say that ISPs would now be able to compete for customers is also a crock. Where I live the main ISP is Rogers Cable. The other guys are too small and too fragile with their backbones to provide an appropriate level of service. So I’m stuck with the Big Guy. I’d love to be able to support my local ISP; unfortunately they can’t offer the service I need. With the type of traffic control methods that are being approved by the CRTC, I know that, soon, there will be limits on the sites I can access all in the name of traffic control and keeping the Internet humming.
How can we prevent this? By starting up our own ISP? Sure, sounds great. However ISPs must hook into the big networks and pay through the nose for the privilege of riding the system. A freeflowing Internet system, based on paying for the sites you want, would end up costing a fortune, both for the ISP and the user. All so that information and its dissemination can be controlled by the Powers That Be. No more Alan Watt, no more Alex Jones, or other “rebellious propaganda.” No more dissenting opinions, no more disagreements, no more, no more. All hail the NWO.
