As the Internet has become an increasingly important part of many people's lives, the idea of "Net neutrality" has gone from being just an interesting concept to a rallying cry for those who believe that communications companies in Canada and the United States wield too much influence over the Internet and how we experience it.
But the accusations aren't always valid.
One of the latest incidents to spark concern in Canada was a move by Rogers Communications Inc. (NYSE: RG; Toronto: RCI) -- the country's largest cable operator -- to redirect Internet users to its own internally generated Web page when they type in a malformed URL. Instead of viewing the generic "404" error page that most Web browsers display, the Rogers page has ads on it, links to Rogers content, and a Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO) search bar.
As a major player in Canada's communications landscape -- a landscape that consists of relatively few (some would say too few) companies -- almost every move that Rogers makes is subjected to a lot of scrutiny, as it should be. In this case, however, the concern from Net neutrality advocates seems like an overreaction.
In its simplest form, the principle of Net neutrality states that Internet service providers should function as simple pipes that carry data to users and avoid doing anything that either interferes with specific kinds of data or gives some data preferential treatment.
Both Rogers and BCE Inc. (Bell Canada) (NYSE/Toronto: BCE) -- the country's largest telecom carrier -- have come under fire in the past for breaching that principle by engaging in what is called "traffic shaping" or "packet filtering," which involves giving certain kinds of data priority over other kinds.
The carriers argue that they have to use these methods to ensure that their networks function properly, and that certain kinds of data -- peer-to-peer file sharing, for example -- put too much of a strain on their systems and can cause a degradation in service for some users. Bell Canada is currently trying to defend this practice to Canada's federal broadcast regulator.
The main objection to traffic shaping is that it allows an ISP to choose which types of data are more important, which could (theoretically) lead to the provider favoring its own content or data over that from other sources. For example, some ISPs in Canada and the U.S. have been accused of using such techniques to ensure that their voice-over-IP services work better than those services offered by competitors.
That's a legitimate concern. But does the simple error-page redirection that Rogers is currently engaged in fall into the same category? Not really. In this case, the ISP is simply offering a service -- for free -- that is designed to help its customers find what they're looking for. It isn't squeezing out competition in that sense, because there isn't anyone whose business involves providing such information.
Google offers custom error pages as well (if you use Internet Explorer and the Google toolbar), but the company hasn't been criticized for it, likely because it isn't a giant communications company and ISP. It is, however, by far the largest player in the online search and advertising industry, which means it is hardly altruistic when it comes to increasing traffic to its services.
Rogers came under some fire last year for another practice that some said was a breach of Net neutrality principles: The ISP started inserting messages to users into Web pages when a user was getting close to reaching his or her "bandwidth cap" or usage allotment for the month. The messages appeared at the top of a Web page, although they just pushed the existing content down rather than actually obscuring it.
In both that case and the current situation, what Rogers has done isn't really in conflict with Net neutrality's core principles. Not only are both of these events designed to help Internet users, but they also don't affect either the content of the site in question or the ability of other companies to communicate with or reach the user.
If Net neutrality is an important principle worth upholding, then we should make sure that what we're criticizing fits the description, or the concept will become so vague as to be meaningless.
— Mathew Ingram, Technology writer for The Globe and Mail in Canada
The sad thing is that very soon (sooner than we think), that little 'Net Neutrality' buzzword will no longer be a virtue, but a sales pitch.
"Sign up with COX Cable...we believe in Net Neutrality!"
Oops..did I mention an ISP? Sorry...I MEANT TO DO THAT!
Why complain about something a compnay is doing...legally?
Remember...Barry Bonds wasn't using 'illegal' drugs at the time...he was gaining an advantage that was available to all!
It's your fault for not using the same drugs to hit so many homers...not his!
Yeah right...
The real issue is not that these companies are creating this disadvantage/advantage, its that we are truly limited to what companies we can use as an ISP. (I am so happy that is finally changing however!) So we have to take the punches from those that supply us to the vein...
My best one is just above the neckline...right there...
Ahh...much better...now how about that YouTube.....
Since the world does not need another Network Neutrality definition, I'll propose this thought:
Network Neutrality is the name given to a set of guiding principles designed to continue the
Internet's interoperable, non-discriminatory, end-to-end processing tradition. The
Internet (the routing and forwarding network) was originally neutral
because it generally lacked any information or capability that would make it
otherwise, and since "more speed" was the demand, improved
hardware capabilities over time was usually spent delivering more speed (not
more functionality like DPI).
In recent years, network operators and network hardware manufacturers have been focusing less on speed improvements and more on services. As one might expect with any new and powerful technology, some of these uses are genuinely useful while others tend to be quite questionable and immature.
In short, today's Network Neutrality efforts seem
focused on maintaining the free, open, and level playing field that the Internet
originally created.
In this case, the ISP is simply offering
a service -- for free -- that is designed to help its customers find
what they're looking for.
Perhaps the benefit you mention is worthwhile, but at what consequences? If my web browser thinks it received a web page instead of receiving an error message from the network stack, it behaves differently. It trusts everything on the page to some degree, because it thinks that I've surfed there on purpose. It also needlessly records that mistake into my browser history and saves that content to my cache. Any scripts on that page are executed, so pristine server security of such a globally accessed resource is very critical.
Whether or not its a Network Neutrality violation ought to be beside the point. Ultimately, a careful and studied view of the method and effects ought to be what matters.
And in any event, if it's not the Internet Standard behavior for DNS, does it belong as the default setting for an ISP? I am not sure I would agree that the answer is 'yes.'
Google offers custom error pages
as well (if you use Internet Explorer and the Google toolbar), but the
company hasn't been criticized for it, likely because it isn't a giant
communications company and ISP.
True, but this change in behavior is "Opt-In." It obviously requires installing their software. It isn't the default behavior. Likewise, I wouldn't have as much objection if the ISP made their custom error messages "Opt-In." (I can hear screams of "Nooo!" from the Security Clan!)
But as an ISP, they also ought to start working on creating an IETF Standard for this new DNS behavior so that it can be thoroughly vetted by security researchers and expected by application developers.
Seems to me that the reason there is such strong reaction to what happened is that there are a few powerful ISPs and they are attempting to use that power (read: near monopoly) to control competition. That makes every outage episode a potential mis-use of power rather than just an outage.
At least here in the US, the FCC is beginning to react (latest ruling against Comcast, for example) and I hope it results in a more even playing field eventually.
It's hard to find much of everything you say disagreeable or not thought provoking.
I HATE toolbars on browsers though. I am surprised that they were adapted by so many reputable companies and became so successful(the norm) when the first toolbars were so nasty and seemed to have a malicious effect.
I've been on browsers or noticed at one time or another that there were MULTIPLE toolbars installed.
they make sending a simple web based e-mail difficult at times.
Net Neutrality - I couldn't figure out why it was defaulting to an AIM page when mistyping a url into the addressbar on firefox.
patewey no! I don't want to install your darn toolbar unless it spits out mounds of cash from my machine.
Thanks for the comment, Murugan. I agree with you that it certainly qualifies as invasive advertising -- but if we defined every instance of that as a breach of net neutrality, we'd have an epidemic on our hands :-)
If I were to criticize this situation, I would then classify this in the realm of invasive advertisements on the consumer.
It certainly could be debated but, as you stated, it does not fit the description and would only obfuscate the whole net neutrality concept for people who are new to this topic.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
The idea that the Internet might be used for scientific collaboration shouldn't come as much of a surprise, since the Web's predecessor was originally created as a way to connect researchers at different institutions so they could solve problems together.
Not that long ago, blogs were a mysterious animal that most reputable companies shied away from, an untrustworthy medium populated by cranks in their pyjamas.
The battle between eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY) and Skype Ltd. is escalating, and in the end, users of the Web-based phone-calling application could be the ultimate losers.
In 1891, Nicola Tesla held up a discharged light bulb and showed how it could be lit up anywhere in a room with a specialized magnetic field. More than a century later, businesses and consumers may soon be able to tap into commercial wireless electrical services, if a couple of entrepreneurs have their way.
Should Facebook and Google users in the U.S. thank the Canadian government for protecting their privacy? A pretty good case could be made that they should.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
New gateways are allowing service providers to sell a set of services (an experience) over any broadband connection – even those outside their physical broadband networks.
The futuristic ideas being expounded on Internet Evolution are quickly becoming part of today’s mass culture, and can help shape the future of the Internet, thinks Doc Solez.
Telcos are falling over themselves to launch app stores – but are the app developers listening? Most telcos will need to do a lot more to engage their attention.
What does a $0.62 refund check from a service provider mean? It could mean that, unlike Google, Amazon, and Apple, telcos aren't ready to use what they know about their customers to sell better, more personalized services.
With the number of mobile broadband users more than doubling in 2009, and soon to exceed fixed broadband, the Internet saw a historic transition this year – and the long-term effects are incalculable.
Comparing Internet services is tough because service providers price and market their services based on a best-case scenario connection that most consumers will never enjoy.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
