Mulligatawny neutrality or what's cooking at the CRTC

Finding consensus on the definiton of net neutrality is a lot like getting agreement on the best recipe for mulligatwany soup. There is no definitive recipe for the soup anymore than there is an absolute perscription for ensuring neutrality. That's likely what the CRTC will end up concluding from its public hearing on traffic shaping next week. The so-called "Review of the Internet traffic management practices of Internet service providers" is officially not about net neutrality, at least not anymore than the North Korean missile launches on July 4 were not about Independence day in the US.

I was going to do some prep for the hearing on my week off but its been raining so I have avoided my binder. But I have been thinking about NN (really). I have been thinking that the CRTC is in a bind. On the one hand, they support many of the principles of non-discrimination that underlie neutrality (like the prevention of undue preference by ISPs) but when it comes to Canadian content online some Commissioners likely support preference and discrimination for Canadian products even if that ultimately impacts access to non-canadian content.That's how the broadcast system operates today and its how content rights markets operate or at least attempt to operate in a digital world.

Net neutrality advocates are concerned about ISPs creating preferences for affiliated content and the threat of the "so-called two-tier internet". Yet many in the cultural community like the idea when it comes to preferring Canadian content and even advocate preference under the banner of net neutrality (more beaver tails less curry in their soup).They are not alone in seeking discrimination in the "public interest". In fact at the New Media hearing a lot of the Commission's attention was focussed on the idea of preference and priority lanes for Cancon. That's hardly neutral thinking . But then most things are not black and white.