Telecom Trends

Perhaps it's your perspective as a Canadian (and I mean no disrespect at all by mentioning that) but there will be no "balance" if any government begins regulating the internet. Until now, it has worked just fine without interference from legislators, so why should we run to them at this point? Let the grand experiment continue!
 

Your comment raises a few points. Governments already regulate the internet and the carriers that operate parts of the internet. The message I was trying to impart was the panel's recommendations to begin with a principle of open access to the applications and content of their choice on all telecom networks (note that this includes mobile wireless and other networks); authorize the CRTC to administer and enforce these consumer access rights; take into account any reasonable technical constraints and efficiency considerations related to providing such access, and be subject to legal constraints on such access, such as those established in criminal, copyright and broadcasting laws.

Call it a Bill of Access Rights - the first of its kind in letting you move beyond the walled garden of your mobile provider (to let you add Skype to your mobile phone, for example), but also makes it clear that illegal content (such as child exploitation and hate) is illegal and service providers can do what is necessary to deal with those situations. That is the balance.
 

Government regulation discourages innovation and we have come this far without too much interference... keep the internet free from red tape.
 

Let not forget that every time the government gets involved WE pay for it. Obviously the government does an important job. Solving hypothetical concerns about fairness in prices is not in their job descripion. Thats a service provided for free by a market economy. The government does not have to worry about a farmer trying to sell heads of lettuce for $50. Nobody would pay that price and the problem would solve itself.
 

I think a starting point of open access, with an inherent benefit of the doubt given to the free market principles, is crucial to the debate. I think the problem with so-called "net neutrality" from a legislative standpoint is that we are granting the possibility of a governmental foothold into the Internet experience.

While the potential that certain sites might be blocked is certainly cause for concern, we have precious little evidence that this will be the case. I feel as though we are starting from the assumption that the free market system will limit choice, which will lead us down some dangerous corridors.
 

The internet has become such a part of our daily lives that people now have certain expectations of what it will do for them. If a provider doesn't meet these expectations, they'll find one that does. With the government involved, they might not have a choice. IMHO, regulation has much more potential to restrict my internet experience than the free market does.
 

In your post you point out that there is no reason to think that any provider would block content as it would be extremely detrimental to business and no consumer would accept such an action. I think that right there is the important issue in all of these debates. There is no problem and will not be, no consumer would stand for it. As such all governments should continue there hands off policy when it comes to the internet.
 

I agree with those who said that the market would "sort out" any company that squeezed its pipes or charged outrageous sums for their product. Why allow Congress to "fix" a problem that doesn't yet exist?
 

We have plenty of proof on how regulation can easily become Censorship. The corporate media structure is a perfect example of regulatory principles at work.
The idea that a public forum be regulated is one that is inherently limiting and full of constraints.

This is more than an economic issue, the Internet has created awareness and expanded existing public, and political consciousness amidst its users. Legislating it now would severely truncate its potential.

The only legislation that should be passed, is that which retains the existing status quo, as the current problems appear to be manageable and form no great deal of concern aside from that generated by big private interest in getting a slice of the pie.

Of course, this is all hinged on what happens down south. I personally have the uncomfortable feeling that our government will, as ever, follow the leader.