Internet ruling crosses borders

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted along party lines to overturn net neutrality. The decision is a blow to internet users in the U.S., and probably to those in Canada, as well. What the ruling means is that American internet service providers such as Verizon and AT&T will be able to offer faster service to preferred customers, and slower access to everyone else. This is a form of pay to play — those willing to meet higher fees get to drive in the fast lane, while the rest of us are hung up in a traffic jam.

U.S. broadband firms will also be able to block sites whose content they dislike, or with which they disagree on political grounds.

A small portion of this might be legitimate. It can be argued that entertainment companies should be allowed to shut down pirate sites that steal their intellectual property.

But the main thrust of the new policy is to convert the internet into a high-priced auction, where those with the greatest purchasing power can buy preferential treatment. That is contrary to the longstanding belief that the internet should be preserved as a place for the free expression of ideas and equality of access.

Whether the FCC’s ruling will stand is uncertain. Legal challenges have already been filed in the U.S., and the Democratic Party is demanding a congressional vote on the matter.

But what does this all mean for Canadians? Site blocking should not directly affect users of Canadian ISPs, such as Rogers Cable or Shaw Communications. It is only American broadband providers who can exercise this option.

Several countries, China and North Korea among them, already block access to some of the internet, and we are not affected.

However, after that, matters become more complicated. Canada’s version of the FCC — the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission — supports open and unrestricted access to the internet. A few months ago, Quebec ISP Vidéotron was ordered to stop giving certain consumers preferential access to its musicstreaming service.

There has been some pressure from Canadian broadband companies to abandon or modify this stance, but that appears unlikely to happen. There is next to no support in Parliament for such a change.

However, that still leaves Canadians at risk when accessing American programming. If U.S. service providers throttle certain sites by slowing them dramatically, we will probably suffer.

There is also the likelihood that if American ISPs do start charging entertainment firms higher prices, those companies — Netflix, for example — will pass the additional cost on to consumers. That could mean Canadian customers will see their bills go up, even if they use a local ISP.

As well, owners of small start-up firms in Canada who need access to the U.S. market might be unable to compete — the playing field is no longer level.

There are, unfortunately, few if any legal avenues that we can explore to counter the FCC’s ruling.

It’s always possible that American service providers will not take advantage of the opportunity to begin discriminatory pricing. Several have promised to refrain from doing so, and in fairness none did before 2015 when America’s net-neutrality rules were first set in place.

But there’s an unwritten rule of business that if a legal opportunity exists for making a larger profit, sooner or later somebody will exploit it. Without doubt, the temptation will be there.

In the end, public reactions might settle the matter. There is no more general sympathy for killing net neutrality among American consumers than there is in Canada.

Companies that experiment with the new powers might come to regret it. We can only hope so.