June 2, 2008

According to the CBC, The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic found that Bell Canada “failed to obtain the consent of its retail and wholesale internet customers in applying its deep-packet inspection technology, which tells the company what subscribers are using their connections for.”

The group has called on the CRTC to investigate the potential privacy violations.

Whether or not these allegations are true, the fact remain– digital privacy and net neutrality are deeply intertwined.

Michael Geist, one of Canada’s leading net neutrality advocates, discusses the rally at Paliament Hill in today’s Toronto Star. He brings up an interesting point: The rally itself is a function of a free and open internet:

Not only is the Internet increasingly the focus of policy advocacy, but it also serves as the platform to enable such advocacy. For example, the net neutrality rally was promoted online through a Facebook group and a website dedicated to the event. Event participants also established mobile Internet connectivity on the grounds of Parliament Hill so that attendees could quickly post news and photos of the rally online.

The Washington Post offered up their take on the net neutrality debate. No surpirse, the nation’s middle of the road ed board took a middle of the road position on this issue. According to the Post:

These companies have a right to manage their networks; just as important, consumers have a right to know what kind of service they are receiving and whether a particular product or application can be used on their ISPs’ network. Full disclosure by the ISPs of major network management decisions would go a long way toward addressing this conflict.

Really WaPo? So if they tell us they are screwing us, it makes it OK? And if customers are unsatisfied with this level of service, where are they to go? Leave their cable internet provider for the other DSL provider which does the exact same thing? The Post’s logic for defending Comcast’s actions is that “have poured billions of dollars into building their networks.”  Yeah, and they have built that network beneath public streets and land. So how long do we allow them to hold on to their monopoly?

Art Brodsky has a good counter arguement to the Post’s editorial at Publick Knowledge.

A group of artists, including Wilco, Bright Eyes, DJ Spooky, They Might Be Giants and Aimee Mann have all donated tracks to an album in support of net neutrality. The album is out on July 29. Artists, long under the thumb of the major label system, are beginning to realize that if they don’t act now, they will be beholden to the new kings of distribution: the ISPs. The internet offers a new opportunity for musicians to go their own way, communicate with their fans and distribute their music the way they want to (several years ago, Wilco’s record label refused to release Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, so the band decided to give it away for free on their website). What’s the difference between picking a fight with EMI or Comcast? For musicians trying to get their music out, I reckon there is no difference.

My brother Chris called his Member of Parliament, Raymond Simard (Lib-St. Boniface), today about the pending net neutrality bill C-552. Simard said he hasn’t taken a look at the bill yet but said he has gotten a few calls on the net neutrality issue. I’d encourage people to call their MP and show their support for the measure. It’s important to let them know there’s support for net neutrality. Maybe with a few calls, Canada’s two main opposition parties will start to take a stance on the issue.