The anonymous assasssination of Marian Hebb

An article in Straight.com from Vancouver struck me just how much free speech can suck online. The article which supports a levy I disagree with (as a voice for an ISP) was never the less well thought out . The author a lawyer named Marian Hebb had proposed that

Copyright infringement has become a habit for many ordinary Canadians—at school, at work, and at home. When they scan a short story or an article, or download a photograph from a Web site and send it to family, friends, and colleagues without permission, they are infringing copyright.

Ms Hebb who advises writers on copyright had suggested that writers were entitled to credit or compensation for works used or downloaded online through a collective licence. Not a radical proposal , if perhaps the thin edge of the wedge for the imposition of similar levies on consumers that may or may not see any benefit from such fees . However what struck me most was the all too common and nasty comments from the internet freedom fighters who snipe endlessly, under a cloak of anonymity, at all who carry different views from theirs.

Brian1234 for instance suggested that Marian was ... nothing but another levy-promoting do-gooder trying to dig your hand into as many Canadians' pockets as you can. If your profession is not paying you enough, get another job. I certainly won't miss reading tripe like this.

Pounder (one can only guess at what he pounds besides his head againsts brick walls) argues even more eloquently that The author looks to be the age of most politicians who are behind these various corporate lobbied bills; and whom have not a clue about how the internet in general is used by people under the age of 45. I suggest doing some reading on the issue Ms Hebb before writing anymore ridiculous commentaries that only show your age and ignorance of the information superhighway.

Right on Pounder you tell the oldster to get stuffed. (Hint she is younger than me buddy).Seriously if we are into tossing names as a substitute for debate what kind of moron that proports to comment on Copyright has to call himself Pounder? Is Pounder hiding behind a fake name in fear that Marian might come over to his Mom's basement and spank him. How fearless. Freedom fighter indeed.

So is this is what the fight for net neutrality is all about? The right to opine in 140 characters or less and to boil down complex debate into nuggets like "you suck". Great. With all the opportunity for enlightenment that the Internet offers we get"Pounder" and his ilk instead.

Perhaps a quote from Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche says it all about what passess for intellectual discourse from those that lurk anonymously online

Life is a well of delight; but where the rabble also drink, there all fountains are poisoned.

An intrusive but arguably reasonable synapse adjustment inside the brain of an unamed CRTC Commissioner.

Officials of Truth and Reconciliation on the Internet Pogrom (TRIP) denied rumours that they had been involved in any redactive intervention resulting in an intrusive but arguably reasonable synapse adjustment inside the brain of an unamed CRTC Commissioner. Speaking on behalf of the Canadian Human Left Commission, in turn commenting off-record on behalf of unamed CRTC spokespersons, TRIP suggested that reports that parts of the text of the CRTC New Media decision had disappeared were false. "Only ISPs shape or otherwise degrade content online, just ask anyone on Twitter" said the Tripster spokesperson to requests for comments from from Dogs Ran Free.

Dogs Ran Free became curious about allegations of brainshaping when reports surfaced from a July 8 post of Mr.Stephen Taylor that a paragraph containing the following comments had been digitally erased from our conciousness. The paragraph attributed to a loquatious CRTC Commissioner ,assuming it had ever existed,which, according to sources, it didn't because it does not exist on the CRTC site today and therefore cannot have existed in the past without offending the laws of physics, would have stated:

"The history of the regulation of speech in this country does not engender confidence that such powers will be used wisely. Canada has experienced several instances in recent times where regulatory commissions of another type and armed with a different mission have challenged the right to say controversial things. The struggles of Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and others have served as important warnings that regulatory authorities charged with combating racism, hatred, and other evils have consistently expanded their mandates, have abused their powers and eroded fundamental liberties. Wherever there is official orthodoxy, disagreement is heresy, and where there is heresy, there is usually an inquisition to root it out. After centuries ridding ourselves of thought control agencies, 20th century Canada re-invented them"

According to TRIP (but not for attribution) no one can seriously believe a government document would ever have contained such right wing twaddle to begin with. And if it it had then surely the Globe or Post would have covered it rather than MJs funeral. "We dont know who this wanker Taylor is" said TRIP "But dont blame us if he gets a visit from CISIS."

Attempts to reach CBC were unsuccessful as it was rumoured CBC was too busy not working this weekend to erase wafergate footage from the web. "Bull, they did that last week" alleged the TRIP spokesman.

CTV claimed no knowledge of any of this, since they cannot afford to do news unless people give them more money. "This never could not have happened without due process " said CTV " We love the CRTC . They are going to give us lots of money from the cable guys,(who probably blocked the paragraph to begin with) and then we will cover important events like Canadian Idol again"

TRIP confirmed that "the redaction that wasn't" rumour was likely started by serial traffic shapers like Bell and Rogers, in order to shift the blame for the collapse of the Internet and free speech from their practices to the CRTC and other elements of government tasked to ensure peace ,order and good government.

Canada's security services suggested there is nothing they can do to confirm or deny all these rumors until Parliament passes legislation to allow them to sniff the web.

A spokesperson for TELUS suggested that it had no idea what what the fuss was about. "If that were true it certainly does not seem the least restrictive way of thought-shaping. However we never read these descision anyways, they just bum us out. We get our opinions shaped by Twitter"

I remember the day we got a second TV network

As we prep for our appearance at the CRTC tomorrow, I feel somewhat disconnected from the reality of choice facing me online and the "threat" to the distribution of content online because of vertical integration. PS yes I completely agree blocking access to content sucks.

Maybe its my age that leaves me ever astonished by the sheer magnitude and diversity of content online today. I can remember back in 1961 when CTV came to Ottawa and I got to watch all these cool TV shows for the first time. Whow two TV networks. It was magic. Black and white and no remote but magic. Choice is a relative thing I guess.

We got cable in 1966 and again a new world opened up. I remember being able to watch NBA for the first time. And as the 70s kicked in, FM alternative did too launching the background noise for the revolution.

Flash forward and choice is awesome on TV, sat radio, the web. Its good and awful, trite and compelling and often beyond my grasp. But its beyond cool and I get nervous when anyone wants to tell me what I can watch or listen too. Assuming its legal. But as I get bogged down in the whole net neutrality stuff happening at the CRTC. I find myself wanting to escape the maddness and rhetoric and put the new Wilco CD onto my ITouch. I want to just go back to surfing and absorbing the flow. (Ok so that's a bit of a stretch since I am blogging as I listen to the CRTC hearing).

Reality check here. The Internet is not falling apart under the sway of the vertically integrated. Maybe the studios still dominate the Brittany Spears content space but this is also the golden age of indie. We really dont have to but the studio stuff anymore.

So for sure lets make it clear if it is not already obvious public policy. An open Internet is de facto good. The Internet is about the free flow of information and messing with that free flow is de facto bad. The CRTC should be prepared to deter bad actors that limit choice. Just don't expect me to believe much of the rhetoric online . Let me start by calling into question the assumption that the ISPs are hurting the independent production industry in Canada. The industry presented this as fact yesterday without an iota of evidence. And let's all worry lot when this story becomes national news without any research.

Maybe I am getting old but freedom to publish bs, does not make the bs true. Man do we need some filters. Personal and self-supplied of course .

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.

Broadbandwagon

I have been bugged a lot by all the angst over the OECD broadband study that shows Canada falling behind in the broadband race. Pundits, politicians and media have all jumped on the data to bemoan our limp results. Most of this handwringing isn't based on much independent thought.



Arguably the results are not so bad when you consider that new 30, 50 or even 100 meg cable modem services aren't adequately reflected yet or that the results can't capture the big 3G HSPA wireless launches that are planned early in 2010. Not so bad when we realize that trailing small domains like Luxembourg (pop 500k or so) or Denmark is a not particularly relevant. Pretty good when you check the OECD hit parade and find that we still lead all the G8 (hey that's something worth noodling is the G8 tanking or do we hold a trading advantage?) . Mind you not so good compared to Japan or Korea. But here is the killer question we have missed? So what? I mean what is the goal.



How fast do our networks have to be in the consumer space for Canada to be globally competitive. As a consumer I say bring it on .The faster the better. Of course I don't actually buy the fastest today because the 7/8 meg service I have gives me all I need . But I get it . Build a faster network and someone will fill it with good stuff like games and movies. But has anyone ever tried to measure the economic advantage that comes from each 10 meg jump in speed . I bet its not linear.



The reason I am asking this question, which to some degree questions my own broadband dogma, is because I have been pplaying with a 512Kps satellite service at the cottage. (still raining)I guess its a bit slower than what I am used to a home or the office but the lag is in seconds and managable even for someone suffering from ADD. Over the last few days I have been surfing and twittering, doing e-mail,downloading files and I even made a web page to post this on . All at half a meg. Pretty radical for a post-war boomer.



So back to my question . What's the right metric? It's an important question for our national ICT strategy. Faster and bigger for sure but if we don't catch up with Japan or Korea soon are we toast or just envious?