- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Don't Take Digital Innovation for Granted
In Canada, powerful actors want to make the Net more expensive, less open.
Locking in ISP profits at expense of creativity.
In my Jan. 2009 column I encouraged readers to make opening the media in Canada their 2010 resolution. I asserted that 2010 would be a pivotal year for communities working to open communication in Canada and beyond. And so here we are in 2011, and it appears that indeed there is a growing community focused on openness, the open Internet at its core.
For example, Over 22,000 people and counting have signed the Stop The Meter petition, demonstrating widespread discontent with big telecom companies who are attempting to hogtie competing indie Internet service providers (ISPs) and make the Internet much more expensive to use.
Add to this the global movement to defend the open platform of information that is Wikileaks, and many other initiatives like the Mozilla Drumbeat project, and we can see a community gathering in favour of open communication, both domestically and internationally. While there's more work to be done in coalescing this community under a common frame, progress is being made.
Upping the price of being online
While the open media community will likely continue to gain momentum, I believe that this year innovation will take on an increasingly central role in defining the future of communications, and society in general.
Here's the situation:
1. Big Internet service providers (Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, Videotron) plan to make Internet access more expensive by imposing usage-based billing (charging per byte). According to StopUBB.ca, this could cost Internet users $60 more per month starting this year. Indie ISP competitors to the big providers may also be forced to pass on this extra fee to their customers.
2. Many of these same providers continue to slow access to innovative online content and services. Most recently, Rogers customers reported problems accessing content after the company experimented with its traffic-slowing technology.
3. Major Internet service providers are investing in and experimenting with a new more controlled version of the Internet, delivered through TV and mobile devises. Bell is making access to dominant services like Facebook free on some smart phone packages while other small online services will come at a cost to users.
What this amounts to is a campaign to make the Internet more expensive and circumscribed while providers experiment with their "managed" TV/mobile Internet services. This is pure discrimination against the open Internet. The market is being structured so that either way, the big telecom companies win. They either successfully corral us into their TV version of the Internet, make the Internet more expensive and restricted, or both.
In its attempt to limit competition from the open Internet, Shaw is even calling for online video services like Netflix and GoogleTV to be subject to CRTC broadcast content regulations.
What does this have to do with innovation?
The main challenge with initiatives designed to preserve and build on the open Internet is that people take the Internet for granted. There is a real possibility that most Canadians will not realize that the open Internet is slowly being swept away from them. This is where online innovators play an essential role.
Big telecom companies will make deals with Facebook and other big players so that you'll find them on your Internet TV. However, you might have trouble finding the small independent online services like those that carry this column or the new crowd-sourced journalism project OpenFile, CBC Radio 3, and innovative services like Hootsuite. These projects and numerous others rely on the open platform that is the Internet to affordably experiment and reach audiences on a level playing field with other larger, more established players. It is no coincidence that these are the same projects inching in on the content and services offered by big telecom companies.
Innovation takes center stage
Canadians need to understand the value of online innovation. Innovators in Canada need to be, well, more innovative. They need to reach more people and more effectively demonstrate the importance of the open accessible Internet. They need to be de facto champions of openness -- just as many of their predecessors have been.
Canadians will step up to defend the open Internet more whole-heartedly when its value is more clearly demonstrated. Online innovators and the community that support them need to capture more audience from big media. Not only will this chip away at the profits and control wielded by big telecom companies, it will also make it much harder for these companies to discriminate against the open Internet.
If Canadians en mass are more deeply engaged by, and fall in love with innovative online services and content, they will be better equipped to defend the open Internet when needed. More importantly, Canadians will actually notice that "Internet" services provided on TV don't include their favorite online services.
Innovation isn't just an awesome thing to do; it has, and will increasingly continue to play an essential role in ensuring that the revolution unfolding in communication continues. Let's show what we can do with this collaborative tool we call the Internet. ![]()




11
Login or register to post comments
jwstewart
1 year ago
Money Talks
Simply put, consumers need to subscribe only to services that do not limit bandwidth or features.
Unlimited data plans for mobile or fixed internet service are the only ones that should be selected. Then providers will be forced to compete for subscribers who expect unlimited service.
packrat2
1 year ago
media ducky
if they charge by the byte, people will think they OWN the material.
web TV not withstanding, open competition would help us here.
AND they're going to be allowed to lie, re the CRTC decision.
WAY past time to boot these fools out.
packrat
seth
1 year ago
vote smart
Municipal and provincial utilities can solve the problem providing cheap high speed internet service for only a few dollars a month but the politicians in charge are bought and paid for by Big Telecom.
A loud activist group might pressure a lefty politician like corregan or robertson to forget about the campaign donations and Big Telecom unions and do the right thing for once.
Federally the only way to win here is to vote for the progressive candidate that is most likely to beat Brimestone Harpy's fascist Contard party.
Last election a group called voteforenvironmnet.ca coordinated the battle. We lost.
Maybe activists can work out some kind of facebook app.
ticTacTech
1 year ago
Flatrates don't make sense
As much as I like flat rates I think they don't make sense in general To me it is obvious, that if you use more bandwidth than your neighbor, then you should pay more. Believe it or not but more bandwidth requires more hardware, maintenance etc with does translate into cost. Networks can get to their limits as the introduction of the iphone to the AT&T network has shown. As usage improved, quality went down significantly. Nobody wants that you can rest assured.
That said, I am opposed to every measure from the government to imply any pricing rules on independent providers as well as any restrictions of content by the big players.
snert
1 year ago
Article on Shaw
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Shaw+Cable+start+billing+extra+high+internet+data+usage/4112193/story.html
Most people could use even lower caps but I don't think anyone should really go there.
If the ISPs are allowed to cap usage then they should not be allowed to throttle any download/upload protocols.
jwstewart
1 year ago
Tictac
Your example doesn't make sense. If the iPhone caused AT&T to reach the limit of thier network then they should have anticipated getting more bandwith. This is because they added mobile clients as opposed to some of their clients increasing use. i.e the iPhone clients didn't exist before they started selling iphones.
seth
1 year ago
flatrate makes sense
The cost to carry a traffic (the term bandwidth misused)is a tiny fraction of the cost of the connection itself.
This is why Big Telecom needs to be reregulated. They lie about everything.
North of Hope
1 year ago
Nationalize them!
These companies should be nationalized. There only motive is to increase profits, not improve service. Costs will decrease if they are nationalized.
Fiat lux
1 year ago
Where are the legal eagles
Where are the legal eagles to point out that profits over a certain percentage, which should be decided by democratic means, by the public, are common theft ?
Especially when wages are cut and prices raised for higher executive salaries and profits.
The multimillion executive salaries are theft, yet people are putting up with the racket ?
Ed Deak.
BrianWhite
1 year ago
Paying for internet by the megabyte.
The major companies are very sneaky.
One thing the networks stay very quiet about is that there is lots of unused cable under the ground. And the hardware at the ends of the fiber pipes allows multiplexing now so even the stuff that they are using is hundreds of times faster than it was when they started using it.
Congestion must be "invented" as a reason to charge extra.
For instance in the USA,
Iphones used to cause "signal congestion" because they had a fault and they were foning home way too often. This caused problems in the cellphone towers and they had major trouble coping.
Customers assumed it was the networks fault, that the phone data was too much and it was slowing down the net.
Then, tada, the networks offered more expensive "faster" tiers and people bought them. But at the time network congestion was not the problem. Apple fixed their phones so now there is less signal congestion too. Nobody needed to buy higher speed at all!
So now the companies work to make things go slower.
Crappy but true.
Monk
1 year ago
Am I Missing Something?
Isn't the issue more to do with freedom of speech and nurturing an open and unbiased forum for ideas?
It seems the focus has turned heavily onto the fact that corporations are (gasp) makeing gobs of money and our bills are going to go up.
If Big Corps are making an inordinate amount of profit through a virtual monopoly, we need a popular, vibrant and open media source (like The Tyee might become) to swing the opinions of a significant number of people.
Right now, the average joe is not exposed to unfettered journalism that will get to the heart of these kinds of issues. The Tyee and co. do not yet reach a critical mass of voters outside lefties, newshounds, j-school grads, etc... I work at a newspaper of about 50 employees and I'm the only one who reads this kind of stuff. Even the newsroom isn't really aware of what UBB means for a free press. Sad but true.
It's still a nascent movement and I have big hopes for The Tyee and like minded initiatives... And THAT'S what bugs me about the UBB/Net Neutrality issue. If we give an institution (in this case, corporations) such control and power this little seed of possibility is done for. We're back to what we have now. Except this time, we get screwed in a digital format instead of the traditional way. Yipee!
Some people are saying here that we need to nationalize the big cable companies (hmmm... Good luck with that one. I'm not so sure which is worse: Pravda or Fox... but I digress) My point is that if such a massive change is needed - or even the small ones -it will only begin when the discussion can take place in a neutral forum. That, to me, is the great promise of the open internet. I won't fight for people whining about how they pay for a service so much as I will for your right to have an equal shot at trying to convince rednecks like me that we need to start nationalizing media companies...
An open internet that is not aligned or biased toward any particular institution holds great promise for a much healthier democracy (and a freer, more competitive market place, I might add) than the rapidly deteriorating system that we're trying to hold together right now. Why are we whining about our pocket books when there's such a profound issue at stake? This is so much more than a consumer issue.
In our attempt to draw the consumer activists into the melee, I think we're getting away from our trump cards too soon.