|
Tuesday November 27, 2012 |
Should the Internet be treated like traditional phone services when it
comes to regulation and pricing? That is the contentious question as the
International Telecommunications Union, a United Nations agency with
roots dating back to 1865 and the interconnection of telegraph services,
meets in Dubai next week for the World Conference on International
Telecommunications (WCIT). The WCIT is a treaty-writing event that has
attracted growing attention given fears that the ITU and countries such
as Russia plan to use it to press for greater control over the Internet.
My weekly technology column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that there are certainly legitimate reasons for WCIT suspicion since the ITU
lacks transparency and largely excludes public participation. For
months, the ITU proposals scheduled for debate (known as International
Telecommunications Regulations or ITRs) were shrouded in secrecy and the
organization itself offered only limited opportunity for public
participation. Moreover, some countries view the WCIT as an opportunity
to increase their leverage over the Internet by proposing regulations
that would increase governmental controls.
While these issues are cause for concern, proposals aimed at seizing
control of Internet governance are unlikely to succeed and the reality
is that governments already flex their regulatory muscles within the
current U.S.-backed Internet governance framework.
The focus on a UN takeover of the Internet has obscured the real concern
with the WCIT, namely efforts by telecom companies to find new sources
of revenue by changing the way we pay for the Internet.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday November 27, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
|
Tuesday November 27, 2012 |
Appeared in the Toronto Star on November 27, 2012 as UN Internet Meeting About Who Pays, Not Who Rules
Should the Internet be treated like traditional phone services when it
comes to regulation and pricing? That is the contentious question as the
International Telecommunications Union, a United Nations agency with
roots dating back to 1865 and the interconnection of telegraph services,
meets in Dubai next week for the World Conference on International
Telecommunications (WCIT). The WCIT is a treaty-writing event that has
attracted growing attention given fears that the ITU and countries such
as Russia plan to use it to press for greater control over the Internet.
There are certainly legitimate reasons for WCIT suspicion since the ITU
lacks transparency and largely excludes public participation. For
months, the ITU proposals scheduled for debate (known as International
Telecommunications Regulations or ITRs) were shrouded in secrecy and the
organization itself offered only limited opportunity for public
participation. Moreover, some countries view the WCIT as an opportunity
to increase their leverage over the Internet by proposing regulations
that would increase governmental controls.
While these issues are cause for concern, proposals aimed at seizing
control of Internet governance are unlikely to succeed and the reality
is that governments already flex their regulatory muscles within the
current U.S.-backed Internet governance framework.
The focus on a UN takeover of the Internet has obscured the real concern
with the WCIT, namely efforts by telecom companies to find new sources
of revenue by changing the way we pay for the Internet.
Before the emergence of the Internet, telecom companies often enjoyed
monopolies within their own countries and were able to extract enormous
fees for long distance calling and other services. Those revenues have
diminished in recent years as the Internet enables consumers to shift
from expensive telecom services to cheaper, more flexible, and less
regulated Internet-based alternatives such as Internet telephony,
instant messaging, and over-the-top video services.
Some telecom companies and developing countries with government-backed
monopoly providers now view the WCIT as an opportunity to bring the
traditional telecom model to the Internet. For example, the European
Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO), a consortium of
41 telecom companies, has proposed a new sender pay model for Internet
traffic so that its members receive "fair compensation."
The interconnection of Internet traffic is generally managed through
"peering" arrangements in which Internet providers exchange traffic
without metering or further charges. The system means that sending
Internet traffic to another provider is effectively free with revenues
generated through a receiver pay model (ie. consumer and business
monthly Internet access subscription fees). Internet providers face
costs in building and maintaining their networks, but peering
arrangements ensure that there are few additional costs in transmitting
the data.
The ETNO has proposed replacing the current peering model with a
"sending network party pays" model, which would create enormous new
costs for major content providers such as Google or Netflix. The
long-term impact would be to either shift significant new costs to
consumers or lead to a global digital divide in which the large content
companies stop sending traffic to uneconomic countries where the
financial return from sending traffic is outweighed by the new
transmission costs.
Not only is ETNO seeking a new payment model for Internet traffic, but
it also wants new "quality of service" rules for the Internet that are
reminiscent of older telecom models and which would threaten net
neutrality principles that ensure that all Internet traffic is treated
equally.
Many countries, Internet companies, and even North American telecom
companies are on record as opposing ETNO's plans. Some have gone further
by asking whether Internet services belong in a telecom discussion and
expressing doubts about the need for ITRs in a marketplace that is
largely deregulated and has relied on private contracts to address
network traffic management. As the telecom world gathers in Dubai, it is
these issues that bear watching, not over-the-top claims about a United
Nations takeover of the Internet.
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and
E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can
reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday November 27, 2012 |
|
|
Tuesday October 16, 2012 |
The Internet governance world gathers
in Toronto this week as the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN), the California-based non-profit
corporation charged with the principal responsibility for
maintaining the Internet's domain name system, holds one of its
meetings in Canada for only the third time. My weekly technology law
column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) notes the Toronto ICANN meeting comes at a
particularly tumultuous time for the organization with mounting
criticism over its process for creating new domain name extensions
that could reshape the Internet.
After years of debate and discussion, ICANN last year unveiled a
policy that opened the door to hundreds of new domain name
extensions. While most Internet users are accustomed to the current
generic (dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org) and country-code (dot-ca in
Canada) extensions, ICANN's plans will radically change the domain
name landscape by creating hundreds of new extensions linked to
brand names, geographic regions, and even generic words.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday October 16, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
|
Tuesday October 16, 2012 |
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on October 14, 2012 as Internet Governance
World Meets in Toronto Amid New Domains Controversy
The Internet governance world gathers in Toronto this week as the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the
California-based non-profit corporation charged with the principal
responsibility for maintaining the Internet's domain name system,
holds one of its meetings in Canada for only the third time. The
Toronto ICANN meeting comes at a particularly tumultuous time for
the organization with mounting criticism over its process for
creating new domain name extensions that could reshape the Internet.
After years of debate and discussion, ICANN last year unveiled a
policy that opened the door to hundreds of new domain name
extensions. While most Internet users are accustomed to the current
generic (dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org) and country-code (dot-ca in
Canada) extensions, ICANN's plans will radically change the domain
name landscape by creating hundreds of new extensions linked to
brand names, geographic regions, and even generic words.
The domain name extension allocation process began with an open
process that attracted nearly 2,000 applications for new domain name
extensions. Several Canadian organizations jumped at the
chance for new extensions, including Rogers Communications (which
applied for dot-rogers, dot-fido, and dot-chatr) and the Canadian
Real Estate Association (dot-mls).
Once the applications were published, the next stage of the process
invited comments on the proposals. The 105-day comment period
generated more than 10,000 responses, with many applications facing
considerable criticism.
Targets included even the most innocuous proposals. For example,
Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer of well-known baby products
including baby powder and bath oil, applied for a dot-baby domain
name extension. The Saudi Arabian government responded by warning
that "many individuals and societies may find this string offensive
on religious and/or cultural grounds." It added that there is
a risk that the domain extension could be used for pornography, much
like dot-xxx domains.
Many other proposals attracted demands for heightened regulation of
domain name registrations. The movie and music industry responded to
the proposed creation of a dot-music domain name extension by
calling for "enhanced security measures". These include the ability
to reject potential registrants and requirements for detailed
personal information on registration that would be made widely
accessible. The groups justify the need for these measures on the
basis that new extensions focused on the content industries have
"the exceptional potential to cause harm to consumers."
These complaints may border on the bizarre, but the biggest outcry
has arisen over proposals from Internet giants Amazon and Google to
register hundreds of generic words, such as dot-book and dot-blog.
While few have a problem with the creation of these new generic
extensions, Amazon and Google surprised the Internet community by
proposing to keep the domains private with no public registrations.
Private domain name extensions were expected - many popular brand
names submitted applications to extend their trademarks to new
domain name extensions without plans to offer the public access -
but the use of generic terms for private purposes has rubbed many
people the wrong way as there is a sense of a virtual land grab.
With criticism of these proposals mounting, ICANN finds itself
sandwiched between unhappy governments, lobby groups, registrars,
consumer associations, and Internet users. If the organization caves
to the pressure, its legitimacy as a community-based consensus
driven body will be damaged. On the other hand, doing nothing runs
the risk of lawsuits and criticism that a decade-long policy process
has failed. As ICANN meets in Toronto, addressing the new domain
name extension issue will have significant implications not only for
the Internet, but for the organization itself.
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and
E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can
reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday October 16, 2012 |
|
|
