Use It or Loose It.

Canadian citizens are learning quickly that democracy, like other rights, needs to be exercised often. The same applies to choice in media. Media monopolisation has occurred throughout history, always for the same reason. It gets results. He who controls the press, controls the public.

Which is exactly why it is CRITICAL for all of us to help ensure media plurality remains. Personally, we turned off our TV five years ago and stopped consuming CanWest/Black Press subscriptions. The Tyee, Gush Shalom and Al Jazeera provide a more comprehensive and intelligent range of opinions.

BC has one of the most anti-competitive media environments in Canada, which is saying a lot, as most of Canada is highly monopolized as well. Here in BC, we have on the one hand, CanWestGlobal running all of BC's daily newspapers (and TV) a long time contributor to Gordon Campbell. And on the other hand, we get David Black running mos tof BC's weekly newspapers. And yes, a long time contributor to Gordon Cambpell. If that isn't an oligopoly, I don't know what is.

Imagine the shreiking we'd hear from the neocons if a socialist premiere was supported by the province's largest daily newspaper chain and the largest weekly newspaper chain. They'd have to call in Homeland Security to ensure the "free world" remained free. But if its neocons running the press, its a non issue.

Such are the distortions in logic when we have elites operating without principles.

Great article as always. The Tyee is a significant example of choice in media.

net neutrality

There seems to be a legitimate issue, i.e. what is piracy, that clouds the threat to democracy that erosion of net neutrality represents.

"Throttling" was the response of the ISPs to the problem they faced in coming up with the bandwidth they claimed they were selling. They'd say they were selling you internet access at so many bits per second, but they couldn't supply it because their infrastructure investments were inadequate.

They chose to slow down part of the traffic they handled as a stopgap.

They "throttled" the P2P "pirates". Some writers have said P2P file sharing is the bulk of the traffic on the internet. In any case, because mass distribution for free of formerly better protected intellectual property is a grey area in Canadian law, what better traffic to "throttle" than that?

A lot of people weren't going to complain about something they felt must be against the law, i.e. getting free copies of something they have to pay money for in a store. The legality of P2P file sharing is a grey area in Canada as after one decision going against the music industry, all industries concerned focussed on getting the Harper government to take action rather than going further with courts that may well have set precedents in stone in favour of P2P.

The geezers who are the senior judges don't know computers the way people who were born typing into a keyboard. Eg.: a judge wrote that P2P was like someone using a photocopier in a library. If you could insert a book into a photocopier in a library and an identical book popped out, then it would be comparable. If you had a machine in your home that could spit out any book in the world, that would be more comparable to what P2P enables.

Now the issue emerging is "net neutrality" and it is serious. Do we want corporations to control what is available on the internet? However, until some resolution comes as to what P2P file sharing is, that grey area will cloud what should be black and white.

why so cloudy?

PS. I see the what to do about P2P as clouding the "net neutrality" issue because it tends to legitimize the "throttling". If "throttling" is seen as somewhat or totally legitimate sometimes, then that perception will tend to allow "throttling" for other less legitimate purposes, for example, such as reducing non corporate approved blogsites to a trickle while opening up the floodgates for Fox news.

If we outlawed "throttling", forced ISPs to actually provide the bandwidth they say they are selling, i.e. force them to implement truth in advertising if they say 5 Mbit it has to show up on my machine, then ordinary competition would tend to provide the bandwidth to me I was willing to pay for.

I think regulation is inevitable and hence desirable in preference to allowing corporations to regulate as they are doing now. Child porn could be "throttled" by prosecuting an ISP who even inadvertently allowed any of it to be served up to anyone.

It was great in the days of the wild west on the internet. Perhaps now as it dawns that the owners of the infrastructure can and do control it to the extent we let them do it, we'll realize we are going to have to control it so they can't.

Its a similar issue to the one that has emerged after the debacle emanating from Wall Street. Laissez faire is losing credibility. Let's try to believe we can do wise things in the way of regulations again, as we have no choice.

David Lewis

You write :

"I think regulation is inevitable and hence desirable in preference to allowing corporations to regulate as they are doing now. Child porn could be "throttled" by prosecuting an ISP who even inadvertently allowed any of it to be served up to anyone."

Since your previous posts indicate you are reasonable, reasoning man, I find it hard to believe you wrote that.

Censorship, regardless of the reasons advanced for it, is still censorship.

censorship

I agree with your statement about censorship.

I am pointing out that "net neutrality" has already been violated as our ISPs blithely "throttle" whatever packets they choose.

I'm saying there hasn't been a great objection to the "throttling" they are doing already because P2P is a grey area in law, and its setting an undesirable precedent.

I can agree that censorship is censorship, and take a position that sometimes censorship should be supported. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded area isn't free speech, its a crime. Inciting a riot is also frowned on.

The 'net is self censoring itself on child pornography right now.

I say set up a regulator like the CRTC and take the control away from the ISPs. Tell the ISPs they can own and operate the data pipes but that's it. The public should be in control over whether any packet should be slowed down or not.

I'd say cut out the child porn, let all other packets go at the same speed for now, let the society work out what it thinks about P2P over time, and make the ISPs provide what they say they are selling, whether that's 5 Mbit or 5 bits/sec.