For the London Free Press – January 14, 2008

Read this on Canoe

Net neutrality is a topic that continues to simmer and remain a going concern for some Internet activists, while for others, including Internet service providers (ISPs), it’s a non-issue and something critics and fear-mongers are espousing to create problems.

Net neutrality is a principle, or code of ethics, for the fair and open operation of the World Wide Web. It focuses on the concern that ISPs are filtering or degrading certain content in favour of others.

In an example used by many advocates in various forms, net neutrality has been compared to the follow scenario:

“It would be like calling Joe’s Pizza and having the phone company tell you that since Joe hadn’t paid for guaranteed connections to you, that you’d have to wait three minutes before they’d put the call though — but you can talk to a Domino’s operator right now if you’d like.”

The web activists are concerned that the smaller content provider’s quality and access are being degraded by ISPs in order to service larger clients, or to favour the ISP’s own competing service.

There is also a concern by some that certain areas of the Internet, or certain ports or access points, are being restricted, due to what the ISPs call bandwidth management, but what web activists see as interference and non-neutral conduct.

One promoter of net neutrality is the foundation called People for Internet Responsibility. They have started an online blog called Net Neutrality Squad, at www.nnsquad.org, where people are invited to discuss what net neutrality is, what needs to be done and what kind of conduct needs to be halted.

This foundation is comprised of prominent members of the online world, including Craig Newmark, the founder of Craigslist.com, and Vinton Cerf, who is sometimes referred to as the “father of the Internet.”

At the core of this issue is the discriminating practice of traffic flow, as illustrated in the Joe’s Pizza example.

The practice of degrading VOIP traffic while promoting the ISP’s, or a third party’s service creates a false market, in that customers are left with little choice but to go with the larger ISPs and the services the ISPs favour, to be guaranteed the quality and service customers want.

ISPs tend to say this is not an issue, and talk about the need to shape traffic for efficient Internet operation. They tend to talk around, not about, the discriminatory accusations.

There is an ongoing push to create legislation to prevent the practice that net neutrality proponents abhor. So far, attempts to legislate controls in North America have been unsuccessful.

The push has even met with some resistance from the Net Neutrality Squad, who say there needs to be a consensus about net neutrality online before legislators can move in and take control.

It remains to be seen what will happen, but this matter will keep on simmering until some kind of manageable solution is achieved for all parties.

Between Christmas holidays and access problems caused by moving the blog to a new server resulting in firewall problems, I haven’t posted much lately.

For those interested in copyright reform and the expected copyright bill, check out and join the local Fair Copyright groups. The main group now has over 37,000 members. The 12 local groups are intended to foster local discussion.

Check out the London Group

For the London Free Press

Read this on Canoe

For this first column of 2008, I will hazard some predictions for the coming year.

The upcoming copyright reform bill will cause some heated debates. Expectations are that the bill will include reforms desired by entertainment industry lobby groups. That’s despite those types of laws proving to be ineffective in the U.S, and having a chilling effect on innovation.

The Supreme Court of Canada promotes a balanced approach to copyright that protects creator rights, but also looks at user rights and expectations. Recent studies show that music downloading may actually increase music sales. Ironically, the very reforms the powerful entertainment industry lobbies desire are probably not in their best interests.

The bill was expected to be introduced in December but was delayed following a groundswell of opposition, including a Facebook group against the bill that generated 20,000 members in its first two weeks.

On the privacy front, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) went through an extensive review process in 2007. It does not look like amendments will happen in the short term. That will disappoint those who want to make public notice of the loss of personal information mandatory.

Unfortunately, we will continue to see data security breaches for reasons ranging from lax governance and security measures to apathy and a fundamental lack of understanding by individuals of the ramifications of their actions.

Virtual worlds such as Second Life — where people join an online world with their own avatar or persona — will lead to more real world lawsuits and controversy as we struggle with how real world laws should apply to the virtual world. While this may seem bizarre, people invest real time and money in the virtual world. Rights to virtual property are no less important to many in the virtual world than in the real world.

There will be more debate as to what extent real world laws should apply to things done in virtual worlds that are not allowed in the real world. No one would suggest, for example, that one should face real-world repercussions for virtual world traffic offences. The debate will more likely be framed around offences regarding the exploitation of, or inappropriate behaviour toward, children.

The debates will also consider the responsibility those creating the virtual worlds have towards unacceptable or inappropriate behaviour. Who gets to decide what is unacceptable or inappropriate? Should the creator of the virtual world have a responsibility to control that? If they take actions to control that, are they subject to repercussions from those they control?

The network neutrality debate will continue, but probably not be resolved. Net neutrality deals with the ability of Internet service providers to control traffic in ways that might, for example, downgrade the performance of competing VOIP products compared to their own. Internet service providers tend to talk about the need for network efficiency, but downplay the tough questions about competing services and payments for prioritized traffic.

This is another one of those user versus provider/creator debates that tends to get mired in rhetoric, making it difficult to get to a principled solution.