With Net Neutrality, Confusion Still Prevails
While I'm sure it was just a coincidence, there was still something ominous about the Bell truck briefly idling outside the Gladstone Hotel last night. Had they caught wind of our discussion? Had Bell sent their lackeys to quash our dissent, I chuckled quietly to myself, as I stared out the window?
Of course, there was nothing truly sinister about last night's Open Internet Town Hall, hosted by SaveOurNet.ca. Instead, the evening proved to be a successful one, full of drinks, discussion, and most importantly, a focus on net neutrality. Yet, at times, it seemed as if that focus was hard to reach.
Chances are, you're probably confused, or entirely unaware as to what net neutrality is - and you're not alone. As the name implies, net neutrality is about keeping the internet open, or neutral. This means that ISPs like Bell and Rogers should not have the power to dictate what services their customers can and cannot use. One example is the decision both ISP's have made in previous years to throttle, or limit, certain types of online traffic - particularly P2P file sharing services, or some forms of video streaming.
But even at last night's event, with a group whom I'd assume to be a fairly technological bunch, there was a fair amount of uncertainty surrounding the issue - sometimes from the guest speakers themselves.
Those chosen to speak on the evening's panel, and hopefully clear up any confusion, included Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of the popular alternative ISP Teksavvy, Mark Surman, Executive Director of the Mozilla Foundation, Derek Blackadder of CUPE, and local bloggers Raymi the Minx and Sass. There were also a number of special guests in the audience as well, with a brief appearance by the NDP's Olivia Chow.
To be fair, the panel offered a good variety of opinions and perspectives, both from within the industry, and outside it as well. Yet there were still times at which I questioned whether those opinions were really relevant to the topic at hand. Raymi and Sass, for example both admitted they only became aware of net neutrality in the week before the debate, a fact that was fairly obvious throughout the course of the evening.
Rocky Gaudrault, as the CEO of Teksavvy, probably prompted some of the most interesting discussions of the evening. For the uninitiated, his ISP has been lauded as a strong supporter of net neutrality, and staunchly opposed Bell's throttling and traffic shaping practices. Teksavvy, which shares Bell's DSL lines, has been directly affected by these practices.
Gaudrault made a great case against Bell and Rogers' traffic shaping practices, noting that, if the two company's lines must be throttled to fend of P2P-caused congestion, why do they continue to offer increased speeds to customers?
More so, he reiterated his strongly held opinion that ISPs should be acting merely as gateways, and not responsible for policing content. Opponents of net neutrality often point to traffic shaping or filtering measures as an ideal way to prevent piracy and other illegal materials from being traded across the net.
But as Mark Sermon of the Mozilla Foundation aptly pointed out, "you're not going to shut down the highway for fear of a truck carrying child porn or guns."
While both Gaudrault and Sermon proved to be bright moments in the evening's discussion, Search Engine's Jesse Brown - one of the evening's special guests - had no problem pointing out a number of the movement's questionable strategies. Of particular concern was the impression that net neutrality was an inherently left-leaning issue, and not something that right-wingers would necessarily support.
Meanwhile, Brown noted that a separate movement, which aimed to bring overseas news network Al-Jazeera to Canada, had also approached those who had signed up for SaveOurNet.ca's net neutrality campaign. A number of people in attendance expressed confusion regarding the move, further clouding the goals of the net neutrality campaign.
Overall, the evening's discussion proved constructive. Those who were aware of the issue had the opportunity to question and discuss with those directly involved in the issue, while those with less understanding of net neutrality were, eventually, enlightened.
Yet, the confusion regarding net neutrality is frustrating. For an issue that directly affects a technology so prevalent in our daily lives, it's slightly maddening that such puzzlement is so widespread. While there's no doubting that the concerns of Brown and others are legitimate, it's these sort of issues in the first place that make net neutrality far more difficult to understand.
While last night's town hall was a good step in the right direction, net neutrality has proved to be an issue that still needs to be clarified, and in a way that's inclusive to all. Raising awareness is key because net neutrality affects us all; it's a campaign that's about more than just being online, but being on board as well.
Audio of last night's discussion is up at Rabble.ca. Or, follow the discussion on Twitter, with the #saveournet hashtag. First image via phil_ogynist on Flickr.
Comments (40)
it was "fairly obvious" because it was difficult at times to get a word in and people were speaking off topic - i am briefed enough on this issue but yes in no way an "expert" on it.
If your goal was to inform people about what "net neutrality" is, a less biased description would have been helpful. "Net neutrality is about keeping the internet open, or neutral. This means that ISPs like Bell and Rogers should not have the power to dictate what services their customers can and cannot use." Isn't there another side to the "net neutrality" debate? Would they agree with your characterization of the issue?
Let me try: "Net neutrality" is about implementing laws requiring ISPs to treat all types of internet traffic equally with regard to speed, access, and cost.
actually, the only people speaking "off topic" as you put it, Raymi, was you and your fellow blogger. I have no idea why you were asked to be on that panel, as you had absolutely nothing constructive or insightful to add to the discussion. If ever you find yourself asked to speak on the behalf of something you know NOTHING about, do a few Google hits or something so as not to waste EVERYBODY'S time.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what sort of bias you're pointing out. I also agree with your definition, and feel it's expanded upon my own (purposely) condensed explanation. When I talk about limiting access to services, mentioning "speed, access, and cost" is just a further way to explain how access to such services is being affected, and I don't believe that makes my definition in any way less valid or complete.
If anyone wants to read some really great discussion on the subject.
The bias was in your fuzzy, value-laden, and misleading words: "open," "power," "dictate."
Are net-neutrality opponents opposed to openness? In favor of dictatorial power? You may think so, but I hope you also agree that's an opinion that needs proving, not a fact that everyone agrees on.
I'm confused. Why would they have two blogger on the panel who's blogs consist of myspace-esq self photography and mundane minutia. Are these socialites hiding their credentials somewhere on their blogs that I didn't see?
Here is a good op-ed from someone opposed to "net neutrality" laws.
it's called the power of influence and having the much-needed audience required for spreading news re: this issue. we wasted nobody's time unlike you are, right now.
While all you techno nerds over complicate the issue and puff yourselves up on your own sense of self importance you forget to realize that this topic effects EVERYBODY! Even us youngin's who don't understand what the freakin' frack is going on. Just because you want your lovely white male CEO panel of Harvard educated experts bangin on for hours about a subject that can be dry at the best of times does not mean everyone else does too! Some of us want the Raymi's and Sass's of the world to represent us because the have MILLIONS OF HITS ON THEIR SITE EVERY DAY!! And if you think anyone on that panel could possibly have reached out to an audience of young people that large you are kidding yourself. We are sick of these topics being out of our reach and if it takes two culture bloggers to make you all wake up and realize we deserve to have someone from our demographic make the issue accessible to us then all I can say is who are you to tell me that these girls shouldn't be there. Go back to your cubicle in your office block and write a report on the politics of the word 'punk' and let us have our cultural representation too homeboys!
I think it would have helped to have started the evening by outlining accessible definitions of network neutrality, traffic shaping/throttling, deep packet inspection, and all of the other key terms in the debate, for the sake of all of the townhall participants but especially for those, like the two bloggers on the panel, who were liable to dismiss the issues as 'nerdy.' Is it possible to have a coherent and productive debate when no one is on the same page about the basic definitions of the central issues at stake? Judging from last night, I would say no.
let it go of the nerd gang-up, guy. did you know that i host my blog on the internet and not on a pile of newspapers? omg relevance!
m. biatch, i don't disagree with the need to reach a younger audience, and sure, we need to discuss how to open out this issue so that it is as informative to people who aren't educated in the technological side of it. but the way to do that is to employ people who are capable of reaching the young audience, and speak to the issue in layman's terms because they know enough about it to BE ABLE to make it less techy, and more accessible....not by hiring on hipsters in hopes of attracting attention to the issue via face placement.
Ha-ha, so funny.
That girl seems to be good looking (can't see quite clearly) and nice legs she is showing as well!!!
I see the audience was quite enthusiastic and one guy/girl (can't tell) is seen listening intently... to their iPod!!!!
Hilarious!
Hey folks, thanks for all the constructive input. We will definitely make use of it for our upcoming town hall events in other cities.
In my opinion the bloggers Raymi and Sass were great. I think they gave the most understandable definition of Net Neutrality - an analogy of someone buying their way in front of a line at a club. I think if one thing came out of the discussion it was that we need to reach more people, especially those that are not necessarily plugged into this stuff already. I'm stoked that they are on our side!
Nat, I completely agree about the need to clearly define some of the issues at the beginning of the discussion. We plan to make sure that happens at the other Town Halls.
Thanks to all who came out and for all the useful input.
off to Ottawa!
Hey guys, I just want to say that we all have our p.o.v's about everything and this is why events like the town hall are important. It's also important to have representation - of all forms. Each person on that panel had something that hopefully appealed to someone, a lens through which we could identify in some way (many people were asked to speak btw to rep diversity). The bottom line is that this is an issue that affects EVERYONE and whether you make it political, technical or just plain simple, it's important to remember the issue and not get tied up in other things. The town hall was meant to get people talking and to hear ideas etc....from what i remember, 3/4 of the people in attendance had something to say and that's great!
Raymi and Sass were asked to speak as they represent the massive blogging community and just one way the Internet is used...it doesn't matter whether you like their work or not...nor does it matter if they are experts on the issue...the point is that this affects them too - they have a stake in the future of the Internet and this gave them an opp to speak to how it affects them and relate this issue to their community.
This was our first town hall and we can only learn from this as we move forward. Thanks for your comments everyone, we appreciate feedback!
And nobody thought to invite the guy from ISOHunt? I mean, he's only in the middle of a lawsuit with the recording industry, and a staunch supporter of net neutrality... plus you don't really have P2P repesentatives, but a bunch of bloggers.
Gary Fung lives in Vancouver :P
What's with the ignorant, sexist comments in here? Why on earth are these 2 bloggers getting the brunt of this? Their fashion? Their genitalia?
>I guess that makes anyone with a myspace page qualified to speak on the subject.
Actually anyone with an internet connection is/should be qualified to speak. The whole point of the panel is to educate people. The more people with a "myspace" page who realize how it's going to affect them, the better! Hopefully those people will start to speak up in the future too.
>Are these socialites hiding their credentials somewhere on their blogs that I didn't see?
What credentials exactly do you need? A pHD in Net Neutrality? This issue affects us all, and certainly affects those CREATING CONTENT ON THE INTERNET. Hrmm...
It's pretty clear to me why each person was invited to the panel. If it's not so clear to you? You probably should have been in attendance or should learn a bit more on the subject.
I think people are taking issue with the fact that they are vapid wannabe web celebs who, in all honesty, had little to over at the event? Just a theory though
if we were male tech bloggers this would have been a non-issue. i think it's great that all focus is being directed at us instead of this important issue.
Like the guy from CUPE who nobody flamed? Why the gender bias then?
"vapid wannabe WEB celebs"...
...WEB. You do know that they have that on the internet nowadays right? The same internet that is being discussed? Or is there a new internet that I missed somewhere?
You know it's a good thing to not have a 100% internet geek panel...
...Rounded opinion and all that :P Geeks aren't the only ones using/building/influencing the internet. In fact, in today's day and age, they are most likely a huge minority.
oh and lol @ Sean
apparently if you were a male that works as a staff rep for CUPE (without a web page or presence I might add) you'd be fine too.
loads of bs
Speaking of intelligent female tech bloggers: I guess Amber MacArthur was unavailable? Too bad.
I just wanted to thank Sass and Raymi for their input on the panel.
Working in the tech community, I know that there are people who have a overly elitist attitude, unfortunately it's it coming through in this discussion. It's unfortunate that this seems to become the focus of these comments here, rather than the actual topic at hand.
Also, I don't see a need for the published article to question the relevance of any of the people on the panel - isn't this a news site? The editors and writers of BlogTO should be thanking Raymi and Sass for representing THEM at this discussion.
Sorry BlogTO, but gearing an attack against the ladies is idiotic.
I'm not a fan of the socialite scene, but I was able to move beyond that. Net Neutrality is an issue that will effect EVERYONE who uses the internet. We need to work together, and not defecate all over each other like a bunch of primates.
For more posts/discussion on the evening, check out DSLreports:
http://tinyurl.com/navx6s
Gearing...an attack? Really? I would hardly consider one sentence in an 800 word article an attack.
@Facebook User Michael, questioning things is part of my job as a writer and journalist. I'm actually a little offended at being grouped into some elitist tech/nerd crowd. There's no attack on Raymi or Sass' character here, simply an observation that, in a discussion that was publicized and organized by people involved in hearings with the CRTC, the conversation seemed to fall a little short.
So just out of curiosity why was there no disdain towards the CUPE (male) guy?
Did he even say ANYTHING? CUPE? F'N SERIOUS? How are they relevant at ALL? He's a staff rep. He negotiates labour contracts for a living.
You say you're job is to question things, but you didn't think to question his presence (or lack thereof). You either asked the wrong questions or didn't think of these glaring questions yourself. In my world we called that FAILURE TO QA.
My wife and I read this blog all the time, as we're not journalists, you won't have to worry about us "questioning" whether or not to read anymore tripe written by you. I hope others follow until you find yourself "questioning" your mistakes here.
Anyhow, this is so ridiculous. flaming people on the internet who are trying to help save it.
God, I almost hope you all get pushed back to 28.8k f'n modems
Fair enough!!
Your article in itself wasn't so much of attack, but it certainly helped lay the track for the comments.
My bias comes from attending the event, and while I initially felt a slight cringe about Raymi and Sass' inclusion, I ended up coming to believe that it was a brilliant move. They got me to think about many different things, from various fresh perspectives.
From my perspective, I was already well versed with the specifics of the problem of Net Neutrality, so I did not need in depth discussion. It scares the shit out of me! Yet when I discuss the matter with my non-tech friends, all I do is bore them to tears, and I come across as a nutter! We need to find a way to get this issue to become mainstream, and as Sass and Raymi suggested, we really need to dumb it down.
This article was originally much longer, but was cut down for the sake of flow. Not only do I not mention anything about Derek of CUPE, but I also mention nothing of Steve Anderson of Save Our Net, and a number of other personalities who were also in attendance. Derek was not the only one to say very little - many others failed to as well. If I were to mention everyone who failed to participate, and who was billed as part of the evening, I'd have quite the long, winding article, wouldn't I? Raymi and Sass talked a fair amount, and therefore were the best example of my point. Note how I say "best" and not "only".
You may do what you wish. I'll continue writing, and have fun doing it. My job isn't to please you, but to write what I see. Let it be known, though, that I'm incredibly disappointed that this discussion has taken this sort of turn, to the extent that it's being considered some sort of nerd war or attack.
re: socialite
Sorry for the crappy terminology use.
Reality is that I do not know much about either of you, as is the case for most people who are cutting you up. Impressions are hard things to shake....
>My job isn't to please you, but to write what I see.
And yet, here you are on the internet, writing for an audience.
If you only write for yourself, shouldn't you just have a heart-shaped, key-lock diary and call it a day?
I'm not asking to be pleased by anything I read, in fact quite the opposite. I want to be engaged. If the article gets me engaged either way, it's done it's job. Your article on the other hand only provoked the kind of passion that has been stewing in my blood for the 10+ years I've worked as a web professional. Another brick in the (sexist ideals of socially inept idiots with a bSC) wall.
I find nothing engaging about this article. It lends no real information on the subject, you merely took minutes at a meeting. I have monkeys for that. Thank you very much.
It looks like someone in the audience has a golf ball stuck in their throat...and the table cloths look like ghosts. Just sayin...
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS