Mediacheck

Canada Needs a Serious Agenda for Media Innovation

Support an open Internet, and the creative efforts it allows.

By Steve Anderson, 5 Jun 2009, TheTyee.ca

computerflower.png

Let a 'New Deal' for broadband bloom.

Big telecom's monopolistic control over the net is threatening to leave Canada with a last generation Internet. We have fallen behind many European and Asian countries in terms of Internet access, speed, and cost, moving Canada from 2nd to 10th place within the 30 OECD countries. Our broadband connection speeds have also fallen below the OECD average, and we rank 27th in terms of cost versus speed.

According to the OECD, for countries to remain internationally competitive, "Governments need to promote competition and give consumers more choices. They should encourage new networks, particularly upgrades to fibre-optic lines."

Town Hall on Fate of the Net: Watch It Live on Monday's Tyee

Join a nationwide town hall meeting on the future of a democratic Internet and how to strengthen independent media. The Tyee will be streaming it live Monday, June 8, starting at 4 pm Pacific time, from Toronto. Find out more about the event here.

The OECD's report states the obvious but what is Canada doing?

In the 2009 Federal budget, the Conservative government pledged to commit $225 million over the next three years for broadband to unserved communities.  By contrast, Australia, which has a similar geographic breakdown to Canada, is reportedly committing AU$4.7 billion to a similar initiative. Not only is the Conservative's commitment relatively weak, it also does little to get Canadians hooked up to next generation networks.

Real competition

In accordance with the OECD, we need to create real competition in ISP markets, which means creating a plurality of ISP ownership types, including municipal and community/non-profit ISPs. The fiber-to-the-home networks appearing in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark are often developed in partnership with local municipalities or utility companies.  Municipalities, utilities, and community organizations should be encouraged, and in some cases publicly financed, to enter the Internet service market.

Municipal governments are especially well positioned to inject much-needed ISP competition. University of Toronto professor of Information Studies Andrew Clement points out that municipalities "have many critical assets, including significant financial resources, control over rights of way, as well as experience in developing and operating other complex, capital-intensive infrastructures, such as roads, waterworks, and transportation systems." In fact, many municipalities own high-speed fiber networks that they can utilize relatively easily for Internet service provision.  

Models that work

There are workable models for Internet provision within our borders like Fredericton, New Brunswick's municipal/co-op ISP. In 2001, Fredericton's city council created e-Novations, its own fiber carrier. Fredericton later launched the Fred-eZone wireless network offering free connectivity across the city.  Fredericton now provides access to their fiber backbone and a city-owned organization handles installation and general services.

In 2007, the Intelligent Community Forum awarded Fredericton, naming them one of the Top Seven Intelligent Communities of 2007. This award is given to "communities or regions with a documented strategy for creating a local prosperity and inclusion using broadband and information technology to attract leading-edge businesses, stimulate job creation, build skills, generate economic growth, and improve the delivery of government services."

Open access

Another way to increase ISP competition is to mandate that Bell and other network operators provide open access to independent ISPs, making these telecom companies more like utility companies rather than Internet gatekeepers with competing services.

While the CRTC has allowed Bell to limit the ability of independent ISPs like Teksavvy and Acanac to provide access to the open Internet, Bell has been directed by the CRTC to at least provide equal speeds to competitors. Instead of adhering to these directives, Bell is lobbying the federal Cabinet to overturn this equal access ruling. They have also filed a tariff application with the CRTC proposing to introduce Usage Based Billing (UBB) on its wholesale customer accounts.

According to Teksavvy, if Bell's lobbying efforts are successful, it will "inherently all but remove unlimited Internet services in Ontario/Quebec and potentially cause large increases in Internet costs from month to month." The ramifications of this would have Bell and other big telecoms increasingly calling the shots in terms of how much independent ISPs are allowed to offer their customers, thereby further strangling those that compete with Bell's own Simpatico service.

In stark contrast to Canada's do-nothing approach, President Barack Obama has put forth a plan that supports the open Internet. The U.S. government is providing public funds for broadband deployment with a stipulation that all infrastructure developed using public dollars must provide open access to independent Internet service providers. Once again, Canada appears to be moving backwards while other countries push forward with an innovation agenda.

The time is right

With the world economy in a slump, now is the time to mandate net neutrality and open access, and to replicate municipal ISP models that work in cities and towns across the country. This will create jobs in the short term, while also sustaining social, cultural, and economic innovation in the long term. According to a recent report from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation titled 'The Need for Speed: The Importance of Next-Generation Broadband Networks', "deploying next generation broadband networks will have profoundly positive benefits for consumers, businesses, academic institutions and society in general".

The CRTC and Conservative government have for the most part adopted a do-nothing approach. Allowing Bell Canada and others to continue throttling the Internet and limit competition leaves Canada behind in terms Internet speed, cost, and access. Allowing big telecoms to become Internet gatekeepers is bad for free speech, bad for consumer choice, and bad for the innovation economy.

While the benefits, necessity, and easily replicable models for a new, more open and accessible Internet in Canada are clear, Canada lacks what it needs most -- a national plan. A new approach could put Canada on a path to a "New Deal" for broadband -- a path to a better Internet for everyone, for free speech, and open innovation. As Bell continues to lobby the government for greater control over the Internet, it is imperative that we keep the pressure on policy makers to protect the interests of Internet users.

This month citizen will gather at a series of town hall events that will bring together web innovators, entrepreneurs, civil society leaders, cultural workers, and citizens to discus the future of the Internet in Canada.

These discussions come on the eve of a July 6 CRTC hearing on "traffic management".

The hearing will help determine whether Bell and other big telecoms can continue to "throttle", and thus increasingly control, Internet traffic. Canadians can tell the CRTC to support an innovation agenda at http://saveournet.ca.

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

6  Comments:

  • jwstewart

    05-06-2009

    Clash of Ideologies

    The idea of a free, unlimited and untrestricted Internet with universal access is possibly a noble idea.

    But the existing physical infrascture in nearly all cases has been developed thru investment by private corporations.

    Don't the telcos own the cables from their network to each residence and business, as well as the Cable companies? They certainly own their internal routers, switches and satelite equipment, paid for by their investors and customers.

    Is it really possible and/or fair to mandate that the use of private property be made universally available for others to use and profit from?

    If that is the case, what incentive is their to develop or upgrade the networks?

    If a universal public system is to be come available, it would by definition need to be developed using public funds, not pirated from private companies.

    And a pre-requisite would be a mandate to create such a system, preferrably in the form of a democratic vote.

    Otherwise, lobbying by companies would be equal to lobbying by Net Neutrality advocates, nothing more than special interest propaganda.

  • Stump

    05-06-2009

    Public/private

    The airwaves are public property. The various frequencies used to transmit data be it over the air or via cable belong to all of us. Telcos just get a concession to operate them. The telcos choose to install cables etc to service their customers and have been rewarded handsomely for the deal. Now, we can move data wirelessly and they don't like the idea that the airwaves would revert to public control, because it kills the monopoly.

    This is an ideal time to remove corporate monopolies, even if it costs us a few bucks to buy their outdated equipment and run it while we build better networks.

    I for one, do not welcome our old communications overlords.

  • seth

    05-06-2009

    BCHydro Smart Meters

    BC Hydro has announced it is going ahead with Smart metering the entire province within four years.

    By extending the communication component of Smart metering, at a one time cost of less than $100 per subscriber and a buck a month Hydro could provide a 1 gigabit per sec communication pipe for citizen's internet. telephone, mobile, and television needs.

    Fredericton and Meraki San Francisco are excellent examples of what municipalities can do with wireless internet. We are talking less than a dollar down and a dollar a month to cover the city with high speed internet.

    The CRTC could set it all in motion simply by allowing subscribers to share their Big Telecom internet connections with others. Lots of small community groups could then take up the cause and spread free innernet through our cities and villages.

    None of this can happen unfortunately because the CTRC, provincial, municipal and federal governments are so heavily dependent on Big Telecom campaign donations and other forms of Baksheesh.
    Until that changes nothing will.

  • ME2

    06-06-2009

    "Sauce for the goose......"

    If you're concerned about ethics, jwstewart, you only got it half right.

    There is litle hope that fair treatment for the Telcos will bring fair treatment in return for the rest of us.

    Or am I wrong in thinking democratic principles were supposed to replace the law of the jungle ?

  • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.