OTTAWA UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR Dr. Michael Geist is Canada’s leading proponent of network neutrality, which, as you’ll read, has many definitions.
Despite the differences in definitions, it’s primarily about treating most bits of data equally so that the free flow of information prospers and opportunities can be available equally to all.
In newspaper columns and on television and in his blog, Geist revisits this issue frequently and believes it’s only a matter of time before it is front and centre in Canadian politics.
The Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa recently sat down with Cartt.ca editor and publisher Greg O’Brien in Ottawa to talk network neutrality. What follows is an edited transcript.
Greg O’Brien: It’s funny, I initially had trouble coming up with questions to ask you about net neutrality because it has so many different meanings. But the first thing I wanted to ask you was why do you think it’s such a bigger deal in the States, than here?
Michael Geist: I wish I had a good answer for that because I think the irony is that in certain respects the examples of net neutrality which advocates would raise have occurred more frequently in Canada than they have in the States. And there, some of the Canadian instances are the ones that get mentioned first, particularly the Telus incident where they blocked access by users to Voices of Change (a web site launched in 2005 by striking Telus workers) – it’s sort of universally raised.
MG: So, we’ve had those incidents. As for why we haven’t seen it more in Canada — the U.S. has a significant number, or at least a greater number, of public interest groups that are active on these kinds of issues. You find it in copyright, you find it in net neutrality as well. So, that you’ve got, certainly groups that have some resources and find it’s within their clear mandate, whereas in Canada it’s a bit more sparse in terms of the groups that are actively involved.
I think what we don’t have is nearly the academic involvement in terms of telecommunications in Canada as we do in the States.
GOB: Well, you’re sort of the lone voice that I’ve been able to see in Canada banging on the issue. Even most consumer reporters haven’t picked up on it. And I think you and I might have different opinions on that neutrality…
MG: I’d at least like to see a real debate take place… and it’s been frustrating. So you know this (diversity of voices) hearing is next week, and the fact that we had a couple people step forward, a couple major content organizations step forward and put it on the table, I think suggests that at least within some of the corporate community, there’s a growing realization that this is a relevant issue. And I think within the CRTC there is a realization that it’s an issue that they can’t avoid forever.
It’s going to have to be addressed. And so when you’ve got the Coruses and The Weather Networks speaking out on this particular issue, I think it’s encouraging if only to say “let’s look at this further.”
Corus hasn’t come out and said “let’s get a net neutrality provision, they said let’s get a task force and let’s start thinking about this.
That’s certainly a step ahead of where we’ve been.
I think the other challenge is that my understanding is there may be some divisions within governments on this issue as well. So, with Industry Canada, you expect in a large government department that there may be some that think this is an issue worth addressing and others that don’t agree.
GOB: Or just don’t understand it. Now, what does net neutrality mean to you – because when you get the argument back and forth, you’ll hear from one side we want unfettered open access to the internet all the time. But on the other side, you hear from the cable operators, for example, who say I’d rather get that 911 call through than a guy downloading something from BitTorrent. So, what’s your definition of it and how do you deal with those diverging viewpoints?
MG: …(T)here are so many different definitions of what net neutrality is. And on a 30-second clip in a news story, it’s tough to explain precisely what it is and you often get differing interpretations of it. I think at a minimum, most would agree that the kind of thing that we saw with Telus where there’s discrimination of content and discrimination on application presents significant problem, particularly if you treat like content and like applications in a different fashion.
And so that certainly comes up when you start seeing the spillover into broadcast areas where more and more people are using the internet as a primary distribution channel I think there are real emerging questions about whether or not (ISPs) will treat them in an equivalent fraction.
Or, to potentially preference their own content if you’re a Rogers, for example.
GOB: That’s the old gatekeeping issue that’s been part of cable for a long time and there are rules against that on the broadcasting side… But on the internet side, there’s nothing.
MG: There’s nothing.
GOB: Now, would you like to see something like that regulated or laws passed – or even how would you do it?
MG: I put forward a couple of things that I think we can think about. I do think that a baseline provision, even something that mirrors a little bit which what you saw AT&T and Bell South agreed to as far as merger conditions a little under a year ago where they did talk about that. AT&T and Bell South – in order to get regulatory approval – agreed to particular conditions that are largely seen as net neutrality. Now, I talked about this being sort of regulated and others note that, no, AT&T voluntarily agreed to these conditions. Well, that’s just a matter of semantics in my view.
They were pretty clear that there was a negotiation with the regulator about what was appropriate… and so I think that’s an appropriate starting point. I think that’s part of some of the things that the CRTC is looking at – and particularly following what we’re seeing in Europe – to start thinking a little bit about some of the stuff through separation issues between the content side and the (distribution) side… Realistically at some point in time someone wakes up and says, you know, what it makes economic sense for us to treat our content in a preferred fashion. (So) in an environment where you want to rely on the internet for some of that diversity of media and for the opportunities for some of these other players, it becomes in my view essential that that content be treated in a meaningful fashion.
GOB: But when you hear regulation and internet at the same time, that sets off all kinds of alarm bells.
MG: It does, but it’s such a misnomer, you know? I mean you’ve had from the mid-‘90s onward when the Internet really started to emerge into public consciousness, they sensed somewhere there was a hands off approach from the government and the reality is it’s never been that. If you go back to the mid-‘90s, the government played a very active role in establishing e-commerce rules to try to ensure contractual certainty so that, for example, your web site can engage in a transaction with someone, and you have certainly and I have certainty. They establish privacy regulations, encryption regulations, a whole series of regulations very much geared towards addressing internet related issues.
From my perspective, the issues we need to be thinking about is not that the government come in and establish a wide layer of regulations for every issue under the sun, but rather recognize that the internet itself has changed dramatically really from a consumption-internet to a participatory internet. And from a policy and law perspective, we ought to be thinking about what kind of rules the government might consider to help facilitate some of that.
And I think there’s a pretty wide range of things. Part of it is to help enable connectivity, to make sure that all Canadians can participate because if they can’t, that it really creates a significant barrier to be able to roll out certain kind of, say, government services.
I’m not saying you have to take the Canadian content rules in broadcasting and throw those on the Internet, although there are some who are raising that issue. But from my perspective, you want to ensure that everybody has an equal opportunity. And I do think that there is a danger given the lack of competition and the consolidation that exists in the marketplace, both in terms of providing carriage as well as between carriage and content, that we may well wake up one day and find that the internet starts looking a lot like cable TV as opposed to the kind of opportunity I think a lot of people see today that it needs an opportunity to flower.
GOB: Except there’s 57 billion channels and nothing on… Now, the operator argument is that, “look we spent billions on these networks. These are our networks. We can decide how it’s to work. If we feel like something is bothering the network, we should be able to throttle it down/.
MG: I know that’s the argument, but there are many instances that our networks that have been created through significant support from the public, either by way of sometimes direct dollars and often times by regulatory support that’s provided people with monopolies or close-to monopolies in order to get to the point in which they find themselves.
So I don’t think we should ever lose sight of the fact that broadcasting and communications has a very important public interest focus. That’s why every country in the world has some regulatory framework around it and it isn’t simply a matter of this is my property and I get to set all the rules.
When we get into questions around things like throttling BitTorrent, from my perspective, there the issue is perhaps less about the throttling and more about the transparency around it and the lack of competition within Canada.
I think probably a good case can be made that there is a certain amount of bandwidth management and network management that is important to ensure—both from liability from a carrier perspective—
GOB: Every network has to be managed, otherwise it just won’t work.
MG: And I think everybody recognizes that. Part of a problem with what we’ve seen take place in terms of throttling and the like is a woeful lack of transparency so that there are conflicting responses that come from the carriers and telcos themselves in terms of what they’re actually doing. There is often attempts, I would argue, to market the consumers a product that, based on the marketing, we’d never anticipate involves the kind of throttling we’re seeing.
So, when they tell customers that they’re offering ever faster speeds so that you can share ever larger files even faster… at the same time on the back end, they’re engaging in activities that they don’t even disclose on their web site — and if you take a look at comments that come from company spokespeople, you get often conflicting responses as to what they’re doing. So, at a minimum I think on this issue, we at least have to open it up so that there’s a little bit of better transparency so that consumers know what they’re getting.
We still face a challenge though because, from a consumer perspective, it’s not a highly competitive market. And so for the most part, the amount of choice that we have from a broadband perspective is fairly limited. Most consumers have a choice of two or one and I think that presents a significant problem.
GOB: And right now, I think most people aren’t aware of bit caps and throttling back and all the rest of it, because the large majority of people are e-mailing, surfing, watching YouTube, maybe downloading some songs from iTunes or wherever. And they’re not really aware as to how much is going on within the network that may be limiting their experience.
MG: Unquestionably, there’s a large number of customers that don’t know — and don’t care because they’re never going to face those particular issues. But at the same time, those aren’t typically the consumers that the Rogers of the world are marketing to with their high rent product where they are trying to offer faster speeds and higher bit downs. Those customers — all they’re doing is doing some basic surfing and e-mail – they’re probably not all that concerned. And they’re not going to buy that premium product anyway.
GOB: Now, my own business is all web and if I were faced with the choice of paying extra to get through the Rogers network first, maybe I want that option and would be happy to pay. One day the Comcasts of the world and others are going to rise up and say okay Mr. Google you’re making billions of dollars running on network, it’s time for you to pay us. But maybe me as a news organization, maybe I want to pay Rogers or Cogeco or whoever so I get through first.
Should that situation be allowed to exist? I mean it does already in how companies pay Google to be at the top of their search results but…
MG: I must admit I have concerns. The Googles and Ebays and Amazons, a few companies that have been outspoken on these issues, they can afford to pay, clearly. But, I think that the answer for us from a policy perspective is that we want the next generations of the Amazons and the Googles and the Ebay, then that kind of environment represents I think potentially a pretty significant obstacle because it serves to entrench the existing players – and more power to them. Many of them have built terrific businesses in a relatively short period of time.
But I think it would be a huge amount of untapped potential on the internet and great disappointment is if the best we can do is what we have in September, 2007.
… So, I do think that ensuring a creative level of quality across the network provides the framework, not to guarantee anyone’s success, but at least to give them a shot of success.
