NDP MP Charlie Angus introduced his promised Net Neutrality private member’s bill into Parliament today. Michael Geist provided a quick analysis of the bill’s provisions, which can be summed up to an emphatic “Oh, okay then.”

Naturally, the bill seeks to add transparency to the Canadian telecom framework, with a particular approach to the traffic shaping concerns which are at the basis of the debate.

Network operators shall not engage in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on their source, ownership or destination.

However, Geist points out that many-an-exception has been introduced to the quoted statement, such as “action to provide computer security, prioritize emergency communications, offer differentiated pricing or bit caps, anti-spam filters, handle breaches in terms of service, and to prevent violation of the law.”

Hm. The grey zones are still rather grey, as all these exceptions will have to be examined more closely to determine guidelines for applying them. Just the “handle breaches in terms of service” exception in itself is matter for greater definition, since terms of service are usually determined by the provider.

However, the truly excellent provision of the act asks for a more open Internet, allowing any devices to connect to the Internet without obstruction, and that user information be provided to the subscriber upon request, displaying information like connection speed, nature and limitations.

It’s a little underwhelming, but it’s still a very positive gesture. This is a baby-steps bill; it’s the first proposition its kind and thus must be perceived as an instigator for debate, reflexion, and study. Definitive provisions will come about only once the matter is taken seriously into account by our current government, which hasn’t been the case. Hopefully, the rest of the opposition parties will follow the NDP’s lead on this and will demand that discussion on the net neutrality issue become part of the Conservative agenda sooner than later.

NDP MP and digital rights crusader Charlie Angus announced today that we was going to propose a private member’s bill on net neutrality, to “enact rules to keep the internet free from interference by service providers.” That’s good news in a sense, but seeing that it is a private member’s bill, the chances that it would pass are minimal, especially considering the current government’s inaction in the situation. But, perhaps that’s exactly what we need to stir the pot…

Earlier this week, the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) called for Stéphane Dion and the opposition Liberals to join them in their campaign to support net neutrality legislation which will protect the privacy and rights of all Canadians using the Internet. No word about their participation yet.

In fact, no word on where they stand, period. It turns out the Liberals are just as nebulous as the Conservative government is on the issue. A quick search on the party’s official website turns up zero results for “net neutrality.”

Along the same lines, a search for “copyright” on liberal.ca produces a 2007 press release about the government’s under-funding of museums, without ever really talking about how projected copyright reform could seriously harm such institutions.

Then again, the Liberal position on copyright reform is becoming distressingly clearer if one takes Liberal Party’s Consumer Affairs critic Dan McTeague’s recent behaviour as a barometer. McTeague, who has a reputation for championing consumer-related causes, has been hobnobbing with DMCA-style legislation advocates, like CRIA and ACTRA, and pushing for tougher copyright legislation.

Moreover, McTeague’s apparently been swimming in their Kool-Aid, as he’s started adopting their skewed rhetoric, demanding that WIPO treaties be ratified, demonstration support for property rights of IP holders with claims of theft being theft, and promoting the risible assumption that Canada’s international reputation has been tarnished due to inappropriate legislation.

The NDP has spoken out clearly on both these issues, calling out Industry Minister Jim Prentice on different occasions to clarify the government’s intentions and how it would affect Canadians. The Greens are in there too. Where are the Liberals? Why haven’t they challenged the Conservatives on this issue? With a majority of Canadians clearly supportive of fair copyright legislation and net neutrality advocacy, their restraint is truly puzzling, although the most cynical of us will state that big business has the ear of the Liberals on this one as well; their silence telling of the unpopular position they are about to prop themselves onto.

Can the Liberals be trusted to do the right thing? Within the next six weeks, the Conservatives plan on dropping a new copyright bill. While it’s too early to know what the bill’s provisions are, the Liberals will be soon forced to position themselves. We’ll then see who’s looking out for who.

“This net neutrality thing is a load of bollocks,” says new Virgin Media CEO Neil Berkett, settling into his new digs at the United Kingdom’s second largest ISP. In fact, he makes no qualms that he’s ready to traffic shape: to the highest bidder goes the fastest access to Virgin’s subscribers, while those who can’t shell out the bucks to the “bus lane.”

Did you know that Bell Canada is taking the CRTC to court for its decision that it should continue to allow third parties acces to their networks, for both phone and Internet access? That’s explains why they’ve been traffic shaping. They don’t want competition.

On the heels of the recent discovery that Bell Canada has been throttling their wholesale ASDL connections, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) has issued a cease and desist motion demanding that the telecom stop imparing “speed and performance of the wholesale ADSL access services that it provides to independent ISPs and other competitors.”

In the application filed late yesterday, CAIP has claimed that Bell’s actions have impacted performance “to the point where the quality of the service has been degraded beyond recognition.” It therefore seeks to curb Bell’s anti-competitive ways, but it also wants to “ensure the technological and competitive neutrality.”

Yes, they used the word “neutrality.” A word both the CRTC and the Conservative government would much prefer to do without.

The CRTC has long avoided getting involved in a true debate on the issue, but with the CAIP demanding their involvement they will have to set a precedent, in one form or the other.

As for the government’s stance, Industry Minister Jim Prentice refused to give a straightforward answer when the issue came up in question period on Wednesday, courtesy of NDP MP Charlie Angus. Angus asked:

“What steps will the Minister of Industry take to ensure that consumers who paid for access are not going to be ripped, that badly needed competition will not be squeezed off, and send a message to the telecom giants that they have no business monkey wrenching with the free flow of information?”

To which Prentice gave a brief and dismissive politispeak answer stating “[a]t this point in time we will continue to leave the matter between consumers on the one hand and Internet service providers on the other.” The simple fact that he did not outright condemn this action or, at the very least, express concern about it, is deplorably revealing of the Conservative’s position: being comfortable with the idea of letting telecoms manipulate Internet traffic as they see fit instead of looking out for the free flow of information.

The whole (albeit short) exchange can be seen on YouTube.

It’s equally deplorable to hear Prentice use the lack of Internet regulation in Canada as an excuse. After all, regulation in this matter falls under his jurisdiction, and he’s been rather chilly at the prospect of tabling any kind of legislation or spearheading a proposal. The government knows that Canadian public opinion is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the telecoms. And since lack of regulation allows the telecoms to have free reign over their networks, it’s sadly apparent that Jim Prentice and the Conservative government are more interested in protecting private interests than those of their citizens.

But as one of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies falls under attack by Canada’s largest ISP association, it will be very difficult from this point on for the government to not get involved. They will, sooner than later, be called to position themselves clearly in this particular issue, which will be quite telling of what the Conservatives have in store for net neutrality in the future.

Michael Geist: CRTC To Face Net Neutrality Issue as CAIP Demands Bell Cease and Desist Its Throttling Practices
Globe and Mail: Prentice mum on ISP throttling debate
NDP: Internet "throttling" a consumer rip-off
Broadband Reports: Bell Canada Redefines 'Satisfaction' and 'Fairness'
YouTube: NDP MP Charlie Angus on Net Neutrality

On the heels of the Internet blackout surrounding the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tibet, human rights advocacy group Human Rights Watch is preparing a code of conduct to address “how major Internet service providers and portal operators should deal with Internet censorship in China.” Sounds like it’s geared towards the likes of Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft who oftentimes play way too nice with the Chinese government’s censorship policies.

Two interesting, albeit distressing bits of news coming from two economic powerhouses, both located in Asia, both screwing around with online rights.

Japan has become the first country in the world where its ISPs will actively hunt down “copyright infringing file-sharers” and effectively pull the plug on their Internet access. Government legislation gone bad? Hardly. It’s Japan’s four major Internet service providers who decided collectively and independently to go ahead and police their networks, apparently due to government inaction on the situation (they had cited privacy concerns over such patrolling) and, you know the drill, pressure from the movie, music and software industries.

This is the perfect example as to why decent network neutrality legislation needs to exist in Canada before our own ISPs go vigilante like these did, without regard for moral and legal considerations. Not to mention the precarious precedent this act sets, as countries like France and the UK have been thinking (our country probably too) of enabling the same type “solution” to file sharing, and will most likely be observing very carefully so as to not reproduce the same mistakes within their own borders.

Meanwhile, over in China, YouTube was cut off from public access on Sunday after a series of protest videos in Tibet surfaced on the video sharing site. The videos were of the Lhasa demonstrations and other similar support protests abroad. China’s track record on Internet filtering goes on in less-than-stellar fashion, letting their 212 million Internet users know they can’t take the heat. Just another reason to boycott the Olympics.

Update: Turns out Google News and CNN are being blocked by the Chinese government as well.

TorrentFreak: Japanese ISPs Agree to Ban Pirates from the Internet
Wired: China Blocks YouTube Over Tibet Videos

According to a study conducted by Wiggin, a firm of media lawyers specialized in film, music, sport, gaming, technology, broadcast and publishing law, 70 percent of all people polled said they would stop illegally sharing files if their ISP notified them in some way that it had detected the practice.

ISPs in the United Kingdom have their backs against the wall, as the government is preparing legislation which would demand they police their own networks as a way to combat copyright infringement. Of course, polls results like this one only add more arguments in favour of the government.

However, still according to the survey, most people figure they won’t get nabbed in the first place. In fact, 68 percent of respondents felt that it’s “very unlikely I will be caught” using P2P software. Not to mention that more than half of them also figured the penalties were minor.

It would be very interesting to see the results of this same question submitted to Canadians users.

Ars Technica: Survey: warnings from ISPs could slash file-swapping by 70%

The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), a coalition of eleven Canadian public service employee unions, is demanding that the Conservative government open consultations on the need for legislation to protect Internet neutrality in Canada.

In a letter to Industry Minister Jim Prentice, the NUPGE deplores the lack of action taken by the government to protect the rights of a free and neutral Internet for all Canadians. It states that Comcast’s recent admission that it was blocking peer-to-peer traffic (after claiming it didn’t) should spur the Conservatives to act now before this type of situation becomes the norm.

As proof of concept, the letter mentions more “home-grown” traffic shaping occurrences, like the infamous case of Telus blocking access to its striking workers’ website, and Rogers’ statement that it engages in Comcast-like beahviour. The companies are breaking their own terms of usage without even a blink, and the fact that they can get away with it is clear that we need recourses to ensure that corporate interests do not interfere with our right to free and accessible information.