News

'Throttling' Net Traffic

Who does it. Why free speechers are fighting it.

By Tom Barrett, 9 Apr 2008, TheTyee.ca

Throttling the Internet (net neutrality)

Squeezing, and slowing, small net users?

Sometimes all it takes to create a political issue is a whole bunch of little things happening at once.

Take net neutrality, the idea that all content on the Internet should be treated equally. It sounds kind of geeky, but activists argue that the issue is about nothing less than free speech.

More than a year ago, The Tyee noted that, while net neutrality is a hot topic in the States, "public debate on the issue in Canada has been a non-starter."

Well, it looks like the debate's finally starting.

The issue's been raised in Parliament. The mainstream media have picked up on it. And now it appears that the CRTC may hold hearings on it.

CRTC invited to step in

Steve Anderson, national coordinator of the Campaign For Democratic Media told The Tyee that he expects an upcoming CRTC report on new media to refer in general terms to the net neutrality debate. That could in turn lead to the topic's inclusion in hearings on new media, he said.

The CRTC has also been asked to step into a dispute involving the practice of shaping, or "throttling," Internet traffic. It's this controversy over throttling that's helped make net neutrality an overnight political issue.

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers is a group of small independent Internet service providers who buy "wholesale" broadband from big ISPs and resell it to individual customers. Last month, the group discovered that some of its customers were experiencing extremely slow Internet service. Bell Canada had begun throttling, or cutting the speed of, the wholesale ISPs' service.

The wholesale throttling is just one part of what University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist has called a "perfect storm" of events that has put net neutrality on the public agenda.

Meet the throttlers

Bell and Rogers Communications have been throttling traffic on their own networks for some time. They do it, they say, because practices like BitTorrent's peer-to-peer file sharing protocol clog their networks, reducing speed for other customers. To keep most traffic flowing at reasonable speeds, the companies say, they need to be able to slow down traffic using BitTorrent.

The practice got a lot of publicity when the CBC decided to use BitTorrent to distribute an episode of Canada's Next Great Prime Minister. Many people found that the show took hours to download.

(The CBC's stake in the net neutrality issue was anticipated in February by the federal standing committee on Canadian heritage, which urged the government to ensure that the public broadcaster is not hurt by the policies of ISPs belonging to private media corporations.)

The Next Great Prime Minister debacle highlighted the fact that BitTorrent, which had been associated with illegal file sharing, is increasingly being used to share legitimate content.

At around the same time, Rogers announced a new pricing schedule with caps on usage and fees for going over the limits.

Info 'monkeywrenching' alleged

Net Neutrality: What Is It?

Net neutrality covers a lot of different actions.

In 2005, for example, Telus blocked a website run by union members during a bitter labour dispute. The company argued that photographs posted on the site threatened the safety of persons crossing union picket lines, but critics said the move smacked of Chinese-style Internet censorship.

The term net neutrality also covers tiered service, a scheme that would force websites to pay extra to have their content travel faster on the network. Critics say this would put small, independent sites at a disadvantage.

Traffic shaping, which is at the heart of the recent controversy, involves ISPs slowing down some applications, such as peer-to-peer file sharing.

Last year, The Tyee's Bryan Zandberg wrote this about net neutrality:

"At issue here . . . is whether telecom companies can favour some Internet sites over others by charging different rates to different customers and making some sites much easier to access than others. Critics say the practice threatens the Internet's level playing field and would stifle smaller independent voices on the web."

The activist group Neutrality.ca defines it this way:

"Net Neutrality in Canada is the principle that consumers should be in control of what content, services and applications they use on the public Internet. . . .

"By protecting Net Neutrality, we guarantee that pro-union sites do not get blocked, that ISPs do not charge anti-competitive 'preference' fees and that independent media can compete based on content, not pocketbook, with the largest of publishers."

-- T.B.

"A lot of little things kind of came together," the Campaign For Democratic Media's Anderson said.

As they came together, the National Union of Public and General Employees demanded the federal government protect net neutrality.

New Democratic Party MP Charlie Angus asked during question period what the government planned to do to "ensure that consumers who paid for access are not going to be ripped off, that badly needed competition will not be squeezed off, and send a message to the telecom giants that they have no business monkey-wrenching with the free flow of information."

As well, the Campaign For Democratic Media has launched a "stop the throttler" campaign, complete with Facebook group.

Anderson said the group plans to continue to pressure Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who to date has described the issue as a matter between consumers and their ISPs. Prentice has said the government is monitoring the situation.

Bill expected

Anderson said he also expects to see a private member's bill on net neutrality come before Parliament soon.

As well, he says, there's that CRTC new media report, which the Campaign For Democratic Media was consulted on. He said he expects it to contain language recognizing that net neutrality is an issue, without taking a position.

The report, expected in late May, could lead to new media hearings that would address net neutrality, he said.

"It's a slow burning issue," said Anderson. "It just takes something for people to say, 'OK, this is really happening now.' It's like a spark. I think that people at a visceral level find these issues important."

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

10  Comments:

  • Fiat lux

    09-04-2008

    The control of information,

    The control of information, through religions and ideologies, has aways been the strongest weapon in the hands of ruling power elites ensuring their thieving privileges as "divine orders".

    Although the printed word has cut deep holes into those privileges, something the rulers have not forgotten, the Net, with its immediate, worldwide, communication and information potential, has become the strongest weapon in the hands of humanity to free itself from the yoke of self appointed dictators.

    Therefore, it is not surprising that the elites want to curb the Net's powers as it may even bring democracy to the world, something all ruling classes, regardless of race, colour and creed, fear the most.

    Economic competition, the dogma of permanent war, and cooperative democracy, can not coexist on the same planet, so it will be interesting to see whether humanity submits once again, as usual, and follows the orders to start climbing the scaling ladders against the castles of the "enemies"?

    All in the name of "freedom" and "wealth creating competition," of course.

    No wonder history always repeats itself.

    Who knows, the Net may even change this ever repeating, self destructive pattern, which would not be "competitive" and "wealth creating", at all.

    Ed Deak.

  • KWD

    09-04-2008

    it's not too late

    Ed is right, unbridled access to information (knowledge) is key to the survival and spread of democracy. By controlling content, those that control the largest media empires also control the ‘facts’ people use in decision-making.

    Limiting content limits the flow of knowledge and therefore undermines democracy (containing its spread and redefining its structure where it already exists). It should be no secret that undermining and redefining democracy is what keeps the rich and powerful rich and powerful.

    For a relatively short period, the net was a great conduit for the spread of knowledge …and a glimmer of hope for democracy. The rise in popularity of alternative media … such as Tyee and countless blog sites … where ideas that challenge mainstream media can be aired is now seen as a threat.

    Folks like Bell, Telus and Rogers will unload buckets of stinky red herrings, like the need to control volume, improve access speed or personal safety, in order to sway decision makers and swing the argument away from censorship.

    The fact that the net is now facing censorship shouldn’t surprise folks.

    Those that appreciate uncensored access to alternative media should take advantage of this time lag between parliamentary recognition and bill enactment to spread the word. For the moment, the tools and the vehicle are available. The survival and growth of what remains of democracy is at stake.

  • mcdull

    09-04-2008

    Time to really cut up the

    Time to really cut up the monopolies thatcable and internet providers have. They don't credit you until you complain when they lose you for the weekend. We don't have much choice here Telus or Shaw. A real unhealthy situation. Where my brother in law lives in rural Idaho he has a better selection for better prices in cell phone, internet and cable or sattelite providers.

  • seth

    09-04-2008

    telecom lies

    Big Telecom is promoting the myth that bandwidth is expensive and throttling is necessary to conserve precious and scarce bandwidth.

    Their bought off representatives in government and the press buy into and puppet the theme.

    In actual fact Big Telecom's dreadfully slow antiquated networks could be replaced with modern 1000 times faster nets for less than $10 a month - telephone, television, cellular and internet - by municipal utilities or BCHydro. Campaign donations have been very effective at keeping government utilities at bay.

    It would cost Big Telecom a dollar or so of the average person's one hundred dollar or so telecom bill to double the bandwidth available on their tortoise slow networks. Much cheaper to throttle and and spend pennies buying off the politicians and press than dollars improving service.

    Keeps the door open to charge extra to actually deliver content. Like long distance calling - you pay for the line they charge you more to use it.

  • Adam King

    13-04-2008

    What better reason to go independent!

    Here in Ontario, Rogers throttles internet like no-body's business, but if you call their customer service, usually they'll deny it! I switched to an independent, Acanac Inc., who've got zero throttling, unlimited bandwidth, and a price that's roughly a third of what I was paying to Rogers.

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