[CAnet - news] Two-Tiered Internet a Global Concern - Michael Geist

For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 4 Optical
Internet program web site at http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/library/list.html
-------------------------------------------


[From a posting by Phil Romers on Dave Farber's IPer list. I have always
argued that regulation will not solve the two tier internet problem. Instead
we must promote ownership and control of the last mile by the users
themselves.  Customer owned networks are very popular with businesses,
hospitals, universities and other institutions, and they have eliminated the
issue of the two tier Internet in their situation. -- BSA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm


Towards a two-tier internet

The egalitarian nature of the internet is under
threat, argues internet law professor Michael Geist.

Internet service providers (ISPs) always seem to get
the first call when a problem arises on the internet.

Lawmakers want them to assist with investigations into
cyber crime, parents want them to filter out harmful
content, consumers want them to stop spam, and
copyright holders want them to curtail infringement.

Despite the urge to hold providers accountable for
such activities, the ISP community has been remarkably successful in
maintaining a position of neutrality, the digital successor, in spirit and
often in fact, to the common carrier phone company.

Adopting this approach has required strict adherence
to a cardinal rule often referred to as "network
neutrality." This principle holds that ISPs transport
bits of data without discrimination, preference, or
regard for content.

The network neutrality principle has served ISPs,
internet firms and internet users well. It has enabled
ISPs to plausibly argue that they function much like
common carriers and therefore should be exempt from
liability for the content that passes through their
systems.

Websites, e-commerce companies, and other innovators
have also relied on network neutrality, secure in the
knowledge that the network treats all companies,
whether big or small, equally. That approach enables
those with the best products and services, not the
deepest pockets, to emerge as the market winners.

Internet users have similarly benefited from the
network neutrality principle. They enjoy access to
greater choice in goods, services, and content
regardless of which ISP they use.

While ISPs may compete based on price, service, or
speed, they have not significantly differentiated
their services based on availability of internet
content or applications, which remains the same for
all.

In short, network neutrality has enabled ISPs to
invest heavily in new infrastructure, fostered greater competition and
innovation, and provided all internet users with equal access to a dizzying
array of content.

Challenges ahead

Notwithstanding its benefits, in recent months ISPs
have begun to chip away at the principle, shifting
toward a two-tiered internet that would enable them to prioritise their own
network traffic over that of their competitors.

The two-tiered approach is taking shape in various
forms in different parts of the world.

In the developing world, where there is frequently
limited telecommunications competition, many countries
have begun blocking internet telephony services in
order to protect the incumbent telecoms provider.

This approach, which has occurred in countries such as
Panama, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Mexico,
reduces competitive choices for telecommunications
services and cuts off consumers from one of the
fastest growing segments of the internet.

In Europe, some ISPs have similarly begun to block
access to internet telephony services. For example,
this summer reports from Germany indicated that
Vodafone had begun to block Voice over IP (Voip)
traffic, treating the popular Skype program as
"inappropriate content."

European ISPs have also faced mounting pressure to
block access to peer-to-peer systems such as
BitTorrent, which are widely used to share both
authorised and unauthorised content.

The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and
the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic
Industry) are pushing European ISPs to implement
filtering technology to block services and sites that
the associations believe are "substantially dedicated
to illegal file sharing or download services".

In fact, the content industries have even suggested
that European ISPs limit the amount of bandwidth that
can be used by consumers.

Issues of priorities

Recent developments in the US and Canada suggest that
ISPs may go even further in developing a two-tiered
internet that differentiates between different types
of services and content.

North American ISPs have also begun to use their
network position to unfairly disadvantage internet
telephony competition. For example, Canadian cable
provider Shaw now offers a premium Voip service that
promises to prioritise internet telephony traffic for
a monthly fee.

The potential implications of such a service are
obvious. The use of competing services will require a supplemental fee,
while Shaw will be free to waive the charge for its own service.

In the US, earlier this year at least one ISP briefly
blocked competing internet telephony traffic until the
Federal Communications Commission ordered it to cease
the practice.

While ISPs once avoided content intervention, even
that now seems possible. This summer, Telus, another
Canadian ISP, blocked access to a pro-union website
named Voices For Change during a contentious labour
dispute.

The company has since indicated that it was a one-time
event, though in the process it also blocked more than
600 additional websites from the U.S. and Australia
hosted at the same IP address.

Alarm bells

Canadian customers of Rogers, Canada's largest cable
ISP, have speculated for months that the company has
begun to block access to BitTorrent as well as the
downloading of podcasts from services such as iTunes.

While Rogers initially denied the charges, it now
acknowledges that it uses "traffic shaping" to
prioritise certain online activity. As a result,
applications that Rogers deems to be a lower priority
may cease to function effectively.

Moreover, blocking services, websites, and certain
applications may not be the end game. Some ISPs see
the potential for greater revenue by charging websites
or services for priority access to their customers.

In the US, BellSouth Chief Technology Officer
executive William L Smith, recently mused about the
potential to charge a premium to websites for
prioritisation downloading, noting that Yahoo could
pay to load faster than Google.

Reports last week indicated that BellSouth and AT&T
are now lobbying the US Congress for the right to
create a two-tiered internet, where their own internet
services would be transmitted faster and more
efficiently than those of their competitors.

These developments should send alarm bells to internet companies, users, and
regulators worldwide.

While prioritising websites or applications may hold
some economic promise, the lack of broadband
competition and insufficient transparency surrounding
these actions will rightly lead to growing calls for
regulatory reform that grants legal protection for the principle of network
neutrality.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in
Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa, Faculty of Law.




		
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party -  


-------------------------------------
To SUBSCRIBE:
send a blank e-mail message to
[email protected]

To UNSUBSCRIBE:
send a blank email message to
[email protected]
-------------------------------------

These news items and comments are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect
those  of the CANARIE board or management.


-----------
[email protected]
www.canarie.ca/~bstarn
skype: pocketpro
SkypeIn: +1 614 441-9603


_______________________________________________
news mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.canarie.ca/mailman/listinfo/news