Net Neutrality is Dying in Canada

Recently the discussion around net neutrality has come up again with Google and Verizon coming to something of a preliminary non-binding agreement on what they'd like to see in legislation. Basically wired internet would "remain" neutral, while wireless internet would be open for ISPs to distort and twist as they please in order to suck more money out of the consumer. The reason I put "remain" in fake quotes and why I see this all as rather quaint is that in Canada net neutrality is already dying.

Bittorrent is already throttled on most major ISPs, with some work arounds available through the likes of Teksavvy or other third parties. But beyond that a much more insidious form of discrimination is taking place. Instead of throttling stuff they don't like, the ISPs have started giving preferential treatment to the stuff they do.

Take Rogers for example. Many of their wireless plans now offer unlimited access to social networks while still capping your usage on the rest of the internet. At first you might think this is great, many people use little else aside from Facebook and Twitter. They have also allowed unlimited use of their crappy online TV service, while lowering the caps on all other traffic to squeeze Zip's online TV service out of the picture.

This is potentially a very bad precedent as they are basically creating a Whitelist for the entire internet, a list of approved sites. Taken another step, Rogers could widen the number of approved sites, while simultaneously decreasing the bandwidth available for the rest of the net.  (And I'm sure that these sites don't get to be on the approved list for free, they probably have to pay for that privilege.) 

Over time this will create a cable TV model of the internet where only certain sites are available in the standard package, and you get very limited bandwidth for anything else. You can be sure that the sketchy sites you use to stream free TV will not be on the approved list, same goes for anything else that competes with Rogers business model or anything that is morally dubious like pornography. 

The worst part about this is that it is much more difficult to circumvent. I can get around Blacklists (like bittorrent throttling) by encrypting my traffic. If they can't see what I'm doing, they can't tell I'm doing anything they don't like. But in the Whitelist model the situation is reversed. If I'm only given 500MB a month for anything that isn't Facebook or Twitter I can't easily get around that. I'd have to somehow route traffic through Facebook or Twitter in order to get around the limits, and there is little chance those sites would allow that.

I don't know about you, but I don't want Rogers telling me which parts of the internet I can use. This isn't fear-mongering or FUD, this is happening right now. What we need is a real net neutrality law that prohibits positive or negative discrimination of certain sites or protocols beyond basic network management. Think of it as a Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the internet. 

Without such legislation, our only hope is that technology continues to evolve faster than Rogers can adapt so that work-arounds will always be available. But frankly I'd rather rely on a true Net Neutrality than on Moore's Law.

Government taking comments on Net Neutrality

The CRTC has opened up an online forum for the next month to get the public's input on net neutrality and the protocol-discrimination policies of large ISP's in Canada like Rogers and Bell.


by SMN

I strongly encourage everyone to go take a look at these comments to get an idea of how the internet is being manipulated by the corporations in this country. Vote for the comments you agree with and add your own comments if at all possible. 

While I seriously doubt that the CRTC will actually read every comment on this site, if we are able to deluge them with enough input they will be unable to ignore it, and will be forced to realize that no internet user thinks that protocol-discrimination or traffic shaping based on content type are acceptable ways of dealing with network congestion.

We should be entitled to use the connection that we paid for in whatever manner we'd like within the law, and no ISP should be permitted to determine what content we are and are not allowed to produce or consume online. 

Microcelebrity and Web-based Entertainment

Spark did a piece on the relatively new phenomena of microcelebrity. The uncut version is about 40 minutes long and worth listening to if you get as even half as much of your entertainment from the internet as I do (100%).


by OllyHart

Spark - Microcelebrity

Microcelebrity is the phenomenon of being extremely well known not to millions but to a small group — a thousand people, or maybe only a few dozen. As DIY media reach ever deeper into our lives, it's happening to more and more of us. Got a Facebook account? A whackload of pictures on Flickr? Odds are there are complete strangers who know about you — and maybe even talk about you. [From Wired]

I find the content that I get from the web (podcasts, video, blogs) to be much more engaging, much more real, and much more interesting than anything I get via traditional media (TV, newspaper, magazine). I'd far rather listen to the latest podcast from Big Ideas than watch Lost.


by zoomar

Web-based entertainment offers content that is more directly targeted at my interests and knowledge-level. So if I'm looking for a documentary sort of thing, I don't have to worry about it being dumbed-down or turned into some crappy info-tainment product like you find on Discovery Channel these days. I don't need to know if a shark could beat a lion in a fight. Or what the "Top 10 Guns of the Future" are.


by zoezolka

There are also no commercials, or at least commercials that don't insult my intelligence. When Leo Laporte talks about Drobo, I know that he isn't bullshitting me and that it's actually worth considering. It's presented in an honest way that outlines it's important features and doesn't rely on flashy pointless imagery that has little to do with the real use of the product.


by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid

Unlike television advertising. Why do toothbrushes and razors fly around in Colgate and Gillette commercials? That seems somewhat hazardous. Why do both of those absolutely have to contain a shot of a person in a lab coat? I'm pretty sure we reached the pininacle of toothpaste and razor technology a long time ago. Adding new flavors or vibration does not make it science.

The key thing that ties the content and advertising together well is the hosts. They bring realism, honesty, and a conversational quality that cannot be found in television or any mainstream media.


by fred.andres

Merlin Mann - You Look Nice Today/Macbreak Weekly

by Graham Ballantyne

What can I say, this guy is to me what a star of 90210 was to a 16-year old girl in 1995. You Look Nice Today is the only piece of media I have ever re-used numerous times. I read books, articles, and blog posts once, and any other podcasts I only listen to once. I've probably heard every episode of YLNT more than 8 times. It's just great to have on in the background while I work. As Leo Laporte said, it's pretty much the funniest thing on any type on media. The vocab alone is worth listening for.

Leo Laporte - Twit.tv

by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid

He's the head of his own little internet empire now, and deservedly so. With 15 different shows on Twit.tv he's probably the most prolific single-man operation that I know of. The man himself comes from old media, where he used to work for Tech TV, and I can count him as the guy who introduced me to podcasts. His roots in old media show through in his shows with segues that cannot be beaten, and consistent branding throughout his shows. He's entertaining and a great host, even his occasionally lecherous nature is a nice break from staunchy television.

Alex Albrecht, Dan Trachtenberg, and Jeff Cannata - The Totally Rad Show

by Cwluc

These guys are the friends you had in high school. Not the "cool" people who smoked in the parking lot. The real friends that played video games and read comic books. Their engagement with their audience and down-to-earth nature is what makes their content so appealing. It's like talking about TV, comic books, movies, and video games with your friends. It's a review show that realizes you can't break things down into ratings, entertainment experiences are different for different people and reducing that to a number is overly simplistic.

I could go on, Kevin Rose, Molly Wood, Tom Merrit, Jeff Macpherson, John C. Dvorak, and Patrick Norton come to mind too, but I promised myself that I wouldn't contribute to the internet-cancer that is "Top XX Lists". Regardless, all of these people have something that can't be found in television or print. They understand their audience and would rather strongly identify with a moderate number of people than be grudgingly accepted by millions.


by Ernst-Jan Pfauth

The interaction you get with microcelebrities is what defines them. Real (or perceived as real) two-way communication via Twitter, Delicious, Facebook, and Flickr allow you to build a limited relationship with them. They are like casual friends that you share with dozens, hundreds, or at most, thousands of other people.

Casual friends that make more money than you, are too busy to return your calls, and are far more popular, but casual friends none the less.


by Cwluc

Link - Dino Comic - There need to be more Internet acronyms

Dino Comics will save the world, through laughter.

What if I have a condescending smirk which fades into a distant smile of recognition?

Link - Rise of Russian Neo-Nazi's

It's hard to find good purely web-based news of the traditional kind. Even CNN rarely does what could be considered real journalism anymore. That's why I was so impressed when I came across this piece on current. (Click the photo below for a link to the video)

Current's Christof Putzel investigates a growing movement in Russia where neo-Nazi groups are brutally attacking immigrants and spreading their hate by posting violent videos online.

Not only is it a very interesting subject, but it also serves as a great example of the legitimacy of web-based investigative journalism. This wasn't a re-posted AP or Reuters story, this is a real journalist and camera crew going to a foreign country and getting real interviews on subject that serves as a potent example of racism taken to the extreme. You would never see something of this quality on MSNBC or Fox.



As for my opinion on the actual content of the story, it is pretty scary stuff. It would seem that there is a fairly large contingent (50,000-70,000) of neo-nazi-like people in Russia who have influence in government and are actively preparing for what they view as the inevitable riots and civil war to come. Their goals are to sieze power in Russia and expell or otherwise remove the immigrants that they view as the source of Russia's ills. Powerful stuff.