Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that all information sent over the internet should be treated equally, meaning that internet service providers (ISPs) should not influence the applications or content that you see on the internet. In other words, if net neutrality was not being practiced, companies could pay ISPs a premium to deliver their website ad their content faster than that of their competitors.

The biggest issue surrounding net neutrality is that, if it was not exercised in Canada, ISPs would be able to impose restrictions on our ability to freely explore the Internet, or ISPs would not provide the choices that we as consumers want. The Internet is so popular and so successful because it has a basic open nature, which allows it to be a free and open marketplace for all websites and content.

The problem is that, if ISPs start to impose restrictions on the content we see, the Internet will no longer be the huge collection of websites that we can freely navigate through and find a large amount of information. Our Internet navigation will be directed by our ISPs and whatever companies are paying them to have their sites prioritized. How are we being given the freedom to browse whatever we want, whenever we want? The problem is that we aren’t being given that freedom, we are being denied it.

If net neutrality were not in effect, I think it would lead to a whole new realm of the media that is almost completely controlled and directed by big corporations. We are already bombarded with messages and images from these companies, who have the money to buy whatever advertising and airtime they want. If net neutrality were not in effect, these companies could basically buy more space on the internet to further push their products and services onto us, the consumers.

In the United States, net neutrality is an issue that has been ongoing for a few years. In the summer of 2006, major U.S. telecom companies were able to persuade Congress to pretty much abolish the previous net neutrality law that they had in place, which stated that “no provider of physical infrastructure – from roads to railways to electrical or telephone companies – could have any say over the content and services flowing over their networks.” (“Battle over ‘net neutrality’ arrives in Canada”)

In 2006, when the issue of net neutrality first became a big issue, Canadian companies like Rogers, Bell and Telus, said that network neutrality should not be determined by regulations but by market forces. This, however, made people who advocate for an open and free internet nervous. They believed that Canadian telecommunication companies are trying to persuade the public to trust them so that laws are not developed to protect net neutrality so that, should they decide to eliminate this concept, they will be able to easily increase their profits.

We have seen the effects of not having net neutrality regulations imposed here in Canada. In 2005, Telus blocked its users from accessing a community website run by and for Telecommunications Workers Union members because, as the time, Telus’ union workers were striking. Also, Bell Canada has been performing traffic shaping, which is controlling computer network traffic by delaying data packets. This means that Bell was delaying certain data on its network so that other information would be transmitted faster to its users. Preventing this from happening is one of the biggest reasons for imposing net neutrality.

Currently in Canada, a Private Member’s Bill to establish the principle of net neutrality and establish rules to keep the Internet free from the control of ISPs is waiting to be debated and in the House of Commons. This bill would mean that companies like Telus and Bell wouldn’t be able to impose restrictions on consumers’ use of the Internet which, in my opinion, would be a great step for Canada.

In the U.S., the recent election of Barack Obama as the next President is widely thought to be a great decision for the world of technology and, in particular, net neutrality. In the U.S., people have realized that their 2006 decision to abolish laws that support net neutrality was perhaps not the best decision. The government is currently reviewing those laws and will probably impose more regulations to protect net neutrality in the near future. Obama has claimed to support net neutrality fully, and it is believed that when he is in office, he will ensure that laws to protect net neutrality will be imposed in the near future.

I believe that, in Canada, we need to improve our net neutrality laws and establish a plan to fight companies like Telus, Bell and Rogers from imposing their own beliefs and agendas on us, the consumers. We need to fight back in order to keep our internet free and open to its users. We are already heavily influenced by big businesses in terms of advertising and the media, and we need to keep the internet a place where we can browse freely and find the information that we truly want, not what our ISPs believe we should want. I realize that the internet may carry some biases in terms of advertisements and links, but I believe that we should fight the onset of more big business influences so that the internet will remain as free and open as it was intended to be.

Works Cited

"Battle over ‘net neutrality’ arrives in Canada." CBCnews.ca. 2 Nov. 2006.The Canadian Press.7 Nov.

2008. http:// www.cbc. ca/consumer/story/2006/11/02/tech-neutrality. html .

Lenczner, Michael. "Introduction to Net Neutrality." What is Net Neutrality? Comp. Neil Barrat and

Alison Powell. Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking. 7 Nov.

2008. http:/ /whatisnetneutrality. ca/en/node/1 .