When British scientist Tim Berners-Lee created the concept of the World Wide Web as a series of hyperlinked pages in 1989, it was as an egalitarian tool that would allow cloistered academics to share their research.
But two decades later, several prominent techno evangelists, including Berners-Lee and the so-called "father of the Internet" Vinton Cerf, warn that those same democratic values are now being called into question just as the Internet is becoming the backbone of society throughout much of the developed world.
They say some of the companies that operate the Internet's local infrastructure – the complex networks of cables, routers and switching equipment that pipe the Web into people's homes and offices – want to effectively slice up cyberspace into a series of channels that offer a variety of service levels, ranging from basic to premium.
That would allow them to squeeze more money from Web-based companies and content creators in exchange for priority access to broadband subscribers, creating a new source of revenue distinct from that which already comes from customers' monthly access fees.
Some say such a move, if technically feasible, threatens to leave surfers poking around a small corner of the Web, since venturing beyond would almost certainly mean getting stuck in traffic in one of the Internet's slow lanes.
"Right now, you can get on Google just like that," says Philippa Lawson, the director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. "But, if these companies have their way, it could take quite a long time to get on some newer sites."
The debate about the need to preserve "net neutrality" has been raging for some time in the United States. It flared up again earlier this month in the wake of a consulting group's study that found the Internet was in danger of being overloaded by 2010. The culprit? Rising demand for bandwidth-clogging applications such as file sharing and video, according to Nemertes Research.
Local service providers say online behemoths such as Google, Amazon and eBay are basically getting a free ride by hogging available bandwidth to deliver their services. Hence, some firms are said to be considering erecting tolls on online content.
But net neutrality proponents fear that will lead to a "two tier" Internet, where deep-pocketed corporations will be the only ones that could afford access to the information superhighway's priority lanes. Cerf, for example, has warned such a move would stifle innovation, arguing that much of the growth in the digital economy is due to people's ability to try out new online ideas at low personal cost.
While Lawson says net neutrality is far more developed as an issue south of the border, she stressed that the same concerns exist in Canada where the market is controlled by a handful of big companies, including Rogers, Bell and Telus.
One of the concerns centres on the treatment of bandwidth hogging protocols such as BitTorrent, which is a popular way for users to share music and other types of large files.
Online chat rooms are full of irate messages from Rogers and Bell subscribers who say the companies are using special software to sniff out data packets travelling across their networks and direct those carrying file-sharing information to slower traffic lanes. Though not technically a net neutrality issue, the practice nevertheless rankles those who pay up to $50 a month or more for high-bandwidth services that are advertised as being "for sharing large files and much more."
While both companies have admitted to "managing" traffic on their networks, they stress such actions are needed to ensure a quality surfing experience for all subscribers.
The argument is that, while file-sharers only make up a small proportion of the overall subscriber base, they use up most of the available bandwidth and threaten to clog the system.
But there are concerns that service providers aren't coming clean about the extent of their activities. In the U.S., for example, cable giant Comcast is facing a lawsuit for allegedly blocking some file-sharing data while leading its customers to erroneously believe they had experienced the Web-equivalent of a bad phone connection.
Closer to home, there have also been instances of questionable behaviour. Vancouver-based Telus two years ago briefly blocked access to a website run by an employee union during a labour dispute. Last year, Shaw cable's decision to charge a quality-of-service fee on Internet telephone subscribers led Vonage Canada, which sells such services, to complain to regulators.
Indeed, there's a potentially large grey area between "reasonable" levels of network management and actions deliberately designed to thwart competing or unwanted content. Is it acceptable, for example, for a cable company that offers an on-demand, Internet-based TV service to slow down streamed video from an online television show provider such as Joost.com?
While existing laws governing the telecommunications industry already prevent companies from engaging in content-based discrimination, some say there is nevertheless a need for more transparency in the industry and, possibly, Internet-specific legislation.
As for the larger issue of who should pay for the Internet, Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor who writes a weekly technology-related column in this paper and others, said the best solution may boil down to the unpopular prospect of asking consumers to simply shell out more for better access and higher speeds.
"At the end of the day, consumers are going to have to pay," he said. "It's just a matter of how they pay."
No comments:
Post a Comment