During our discussion this week, one of the discussions that I found particularly interesting was the idea of contemplating the cost of Internet and what it might mean to us to have a completely free Internet in Canada. Some of the ideas we shared were related to whether or not this would have an impact on the “digital divide” in that more people would have access to information. Others argued that it is quite easy today even in a “paying society” to get access simply by going down to your local library. In many cases what it might come down to is the time and ease of access in that in most homes, should you have all the necessary hardware (which is also an issue in itself), you can access the internet to answer any question you might have at any time 24/7.
So why isn’t it free and what are the costs associated with providing Internet services? Exactly what are we paying for?
Wiki Answers: Why do we have to pay an Internet Provider?
“There are several factors, but the most prominent is to pay for the physical infrastructure. While no one company or government controls the Internet, there are physical cables, which must be buried and maintained. There are also the individual servers, which correspond to individual web sites -- these require electricity, a controlled climate, a brick-and-mortar location and personnel to oversee and maintain. Without knowing the actual breakdown, these are the two major factors involved in paying for access to the Internet.”
So with this, we need to pay our Internet Service Providers (ISP) i.e. Rogers, Bell, Shaw etc. to maintain some sort of physical maintenance of the cables and infrastructure. That would definitely make sense and I would buy in to the model of sharing those costs in return for a service. But the question that I might have is related to the providers that do not own infrastructures. Do they simply “pirate” the connection and take over as a provider at a reduced rate?
The other question that came up in my mind is what our service providers actually provide us and what kind of impact would that have on the content that we see. What’s interesting is that there is a significant debate is Canada right now related to Internet pirating and “traffic shaping” practices. What “traffic shaping” refers to is ISPs using various forms of technology to favour one application, site or program over another.
Google, Amazon, others want CRTC to ban internet interference
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:53 PM ET
By Paul Jay, CBC News
“In a submission filed Monday to the Canada Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in advance of a July probe into the issue of internet traffic management, the Open Internet Coalition said traffic shaping network management "discourages investment in broadband networks, diminishes consumer choice, interferes with users' freedom of expression, and inhibits innovation. If the commission allows Canadian ISPs to apply application specific traffic management practices to legal content or applications, it would be out of step with U.S. telecommunications policy and would disadvantage Canadian consumers and application providers," wrote the Open Internet Coalition.”
What’s interesting is that apparently this has been going on for years under the guise that the ISPs were simply protecting the ISPs from piracy and consumers from “undesirable sites” but basically what happens is that controls are being placed on your internet that are based on the service providers discretion. In theory, your search results will be different based on the provider that you are with and potentially their suppliers sitting in their back pockets.
So back to our earlier discussion on what would happen in a free Internet scenario? Costs have to be recuperated from somewhere to pay for the all-important “infrastructure” that they are supporting. Any guesses on where this would come from? I think we were on to something.
Full Articles
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/9965-google-amazon-and-more-trying-to-ban-canadas-traffic-shaping/
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/24/tech-net-neutrality.html
So why isn’t it free and what are the costs associated with providing Internet services? Exactly what are we paying for?
Wiki Answers: Why do we have to pay an Internet Provider?
“There are several factors, but the most prominent is to pay for the physical infrastructure. While no one company or government controls the Internet, there are physical cables, which must be buried and maintained. There are also the individual servers, which correspond to individual web sites -- these require electricity, a controlled climate, a brick-and-mortar location and personnel to oversee and maintain. Without knowing the actual breakdown, these are the two major factors involved in paying for access to the Internet.”
So with this, we need to pay our Internet Service Providers (ISP) i.e. Rogers, Bell, Shaw etc. to maintain some sort of physical maintenance of the cables and infrastructure. That would definitely make sense and I would buy in to the model of sharing those costs in return for a service. But the question that I might have is related to the providers that do not own infrastructures. Do they simply “pirate” the connection and take over as a provider at a reduced rate?
The other question that came up in my mind is what our service providers actually provide us and what kind of impact would that have on the content that we see. What’s interesting is that there is a significant debate is Canada right now related to Internet pirating and “traffic shaping” practices. What “traffic shaping” refers to is ISPs using various forms of technology to favour one application, site or program over another.
Google, Amazon, others want CRTC to ban internet interference
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:53 PM ET
By Paul Jay, CBC News
“In a submission filed Monday to the Canada Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in advance of a July probe into the issue of internet traffic management, the Open Internet Coalition said traffic shaping network management "discourages investment in broadband networks, diminishes consumer choice, interferes with users' freedom of expression, and inhibits innovation. If the commission allows Canadian ISPs to apply application specific traffic management practices to legal content or applications, it would be out of step with U.S. telecommunications policy and would disadvantage Canadian consumers and application providers," wrote the Open Internet Coalition.”
What’s interesting is that apparently this has been going on for years under the guise that the ISPs were simply protecting the ISPs from piracy and consumers from “undesirable sites” but basically what happens is that controls are being placed on your internet that are based on the service providers discretion. In theory, your search results will be different based on the provider that you are with and potentially their suppliers sitting in their back pockets.
So back to our earlier discussion on what would happen in a free Internet scenario? Costs have to be recuperated from somewhere to pay for the all-important “infrastructure” that they are supporting. Any guesses on where this would come from? I think we were on to something.
Full Articles
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/9965-google-amazon-and-more-trying-to-ban-canadas-traffic-shaping/
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/24/tech-net-neutrality.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Carnaby
ReplyDeleteThanks for your interesting post. I too have contemplated these questions. Like you said, the cost of providing internet service is not cheap. Both physical costs and services are high to maintain net service. My understanding is that Rogers has $5 billion dollars of debt on its balance sheet related to infrastructure to provide digital services (cable, wireless, TV).
Free internet has been tried before and mostly failed. ISPs (like Netzero) would provide an annoying banner (at all times) at the top of your screen where they provided advertisements while you used the internet for free. Nobody wanted that and it eventually died. Your post also touches on another important point—in order to use the net you have to own a PC and that itself is costly.
Recently, my boyfriend switched his internet provider to www.teksavvy.com. This alternate net provider pays Bell and Rogers a service fee to connect to their backbone trunk lines. This of course is regulated and constantly disputed by the players and the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission). Bell and Rogers constantly argue for higher fees from these alternate net providers. Competition has come to Canada and more is coming.
Very few people realize they have more opportunities for net service outside the options of Bell and Rogers but this will change as smaller providers ramp up their marketing. Similarly, another digital battle along these lines is Skype providing phone service and paying a fee for the connection to the home to the infrastructure owner.
Franca