Net Neutrality: A Library Issue

Should the internet be regulated? Are my neighbours impairing my ability to Skype with my parents by downloading movies all the time? Is my Internet service provider (ISP) allowed to block my access to competitors' websites? What does "net neutrality" mean to me and my library?

Net (or network) neutrality is the principle that any content sent over a network (in this case, the Internet) should be treated equally by the network. On a neutral net, the speed with which an end-user can access any given content is based on the capacity of that user's Internet connection, and not on any favourable or unfavourable treatment of the content by the ISP. In other words, on a neutral net, your PDF edition of F�liciter will appear on your screen as fast as your connection will allow. On a non-neutral net, an ISP that disliked this article about net neutrality could slow or block your access to this magazine.

The legal structure behind net neutrality descends from the Anglo-American concept of the "common carrier," which was originally applied to shipping and transportation networks (e.g., the rail network) and later to communications networks (e.g., the postal mail and telephone networks). At issue in the net neutrality debate is whether (SPs should be considered common carriers or not.

The net neutrality debate in Canada

The debate over whether to enforce some form of net neutrality in Canada has been dominated by large ISPs and some media companies with concerns over piracy- which have advocated for the ability to do any form of "traffic management" they think is necessary- and by public interest advocacy groups such as the Campaign for Democratic Media (now known as OpenMedia.ca), the National Union of Public and General Employees and the Council of Canadians -which have argued that networks should not be allowed to discriminate among legal content.

In some respects, this debate can be seen as one over whether the Internet should be treated as a utility or an entertainment device: a telephone or a television, a public highway or a roller coaster. Is the Internet a basic service that should be open to all with minimal barriers, and is a neutral net essential in order to have a level playing field for all who participate in online communications? Or is the Internet an entertainment venue on which content providers should book time or space, paying each ISP to make content available on that ISP's network?

Of course, the beauty of the Internet is that it is both a tefephone and a television, both a communications utility and an entertainment device. In this case, which rules apply? Those that guarantee that any vehicle that won't damage the road can drive along it, or those that ask for a ticket and check your height before you board to ride? This has been the policy challenge for Canada to disentangle.

Net neutrality in Canada today

Although net neutrality began attracting attention in Canada in about 2005, most of the coverage and discussion at that time was confined to information technology blogs, forums and publications. In 2008, all of that changed when the CBC tried to distribute the final episode of a popular television reality show ("Canada's Next Great Prime Minister") via the peer-to-peer Internet protocol BitTorrent. Because many ISPs throttled this file sharing technology, thousands of viewers were left frustrated by the process, and net neutrality issues were brought into mainstream consciousness.

In the spring of 2009, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which had previously declined to consider Internet regulations, held public hearings on Internet traffic management. In addition to being the first online public hearings held by the Canadian government (and paving the way for the massive copyright e-consultation a few months later), these hearings were easy to participate in, allowing for far more end-user contributions than a traditional hearing.

In October 2009, the CRTC issued its ruling on Internet traffic management,' making Canada an early leader in issuing net neutrality regulations. However, responses to the compromise ruling have been mixed.2

The new Canadian traffic management regulations allow ISPs to shape traffic on their networks but state a preference for "economic practices" over outright throttling. Additionally, ISPs are now required to disclose which traffic management practices they employ, and to notify consumers prior to any changes. Consumers, in turn, are allowed to make complaints about those practices they think are unnecessary, which may trigger a Commission investigation of their ISP. ISPs that sell wholesale services to smaller ISPs will now need approval from the Commission in order to throttle wholesale customers more than retail customers. Afinal highlight of the ruling was a clarification of the privacy obligations of ISPs that collect customers' personal information for the purposes of traffic management.

In short, although we still do not have any guarantee of a neutral net, the Canadian government has made a statement in favour of neutrality as an ideal. ISPs in Canada will now have more hoops to jump through in order to shape traffic, smaller ISPs may enjoy a more level playing field, and ISPs may improve their handling of end-users' personal information. Charlie Angus, the New Democratic Party digital affairs critic who introduced pro-neutrality private member's bills in 2008 and 2009, has emerged as a watchdog over how the new regulations are functioning, and has publicly encouraged the CRTC to be more proactive in investigating IPS practices and enforcing the new rules.3

Is net neutrality a library issue?

What does all this have to do with libraries? As the Canadian Library Association position statement on intellectual freedom argues, "It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity."4 Net neutrality ensures that ISPs will not be deciding what Internet users can read, watch, access, and communicate online.

As is evident, a non-neutral net is a slippery slope that leads to "have" and "have not" Internet users, with only the privileged having full access to any website or protocol. In a scenario where a non-neutral net is the norm, telecommunications companies - which nowadays are often also online content providers - would have free rein to decide what their customers should be able to access, and what should be slowed down or blocked altogether.

In such a non-neutral world, ISPs could not only block end-users based on their ability to pay, but would also have the ability to selectively block information providers. Given that many large ISPs are also content providers, there is significant potential for conflict of interest in shaping what any Internet subscribers can access. Further, ISPs could make a lot of money from content providers willing to pay for priority service - if one search engine loaded up fasterthan any other, users of competing search engines would likely migrate to it. The same would likely be the case with online bookstores and most other online services.

Library Association advocacy

Unsurprisingly, given the implications of network nonneutrality for intellectual freedom, library associations have been taking action to advocate for a neutral net. Members of CLA and the British Columbia Library Association joined forces in 2008 to pass near-identical resolutions in support of net neutrality at their respective annual general meetings.5,6 Both organizations have also highlighted the topic to their memberships via newsletter articles and conference workshops.

Canadian library associations are hardly acting alone in taking a stand for net neutrality. The American Library Association has been issuing policy briefs,7 press releases8 and articles9-11 on the topic since at least 2006.

Conclusion

Net neutrality is a critical component of equitable access to information and freedom of expression. Although Canada has recently made some progress toward enshrining principles of net neutrality in our telecommunications regulations, the status quo does not guarantee protection of consumers from unnecessary traffic management by ISPs. Librarians and library associations in Canada and the United States have advocated for net neutrality as part of their goal of protecting intellectual freedom. Such efforts must continue until net neutrality is assured.

[Author Affiliation]

Devon Greyson is the Information Specialist at the University of British Columbia Centre for Health Services and Policy Research and a part-time faculty member at Capitano University. Devon is the founding chair of the Canadian Health Libraries Association Open Access Interest Group and co-chair of the British Columbia Library Association's Information Policy Committee. You can read more by Devon at the Social Justice Librarian blog (sjlibrarian.wordpress.com). She can be reached at devon@chspr.ubc.ca.