The menace of Net Neutrality pops into the mainstream news from time to time but, unless you are an hyper-informed citizen or public policy wonk, 'tis a bit hard to grok the issues which manage to get some pundits very worked up.

Part of the comprehension conundrum is caused by the inter-disciplinary nature of the issue which mixes free/controlled market economics, Internet routing protocols, monopolies and (lack of) competition and the tension of public vs. corporate (Telco) investment in the "last mile" technology which delivers your internet.

The confusing nature, and the difficulty of framing the argument to maintain status quo (sort of anyhow), results in many stakeholders tacitly ignoring the issue and hoping the Telcos/cable companies will simply "do what's best" for the consumer.

A few months back at Vidfest 2008 in Vancouver, I attended a panel about Net Neutrality presented by Jason Roks, Steven Andersen and Kris Krug surfing along to the discourse with relevant sites to add depth to the conversation. From the questions from the audience, it is a clear that most people do not understand the issue and, as a result, the big firms (Telus, Bell, Rogers) have the public by the IPs so to speak. Afterwards, over beers, we discussed the need for a Common Craft video to explain the issue ;-).

At first glance, one could think that the Telcos/cable companies have a right to "protect" - meaning shape, mold, direct the bits traveling via "their" network - however they choose. Also, one can assume that the policies of traffic shaping only affect a small, rogue-ish segment of Internet users. I find both of these assumptions to be misleading and beneficial to the conglomerates who seek to control the public's Internet access patterns.

As a supporter of extending the benefits of free market economics and democracy to all segments of the population, and harbouring a disdain for the scant choices for the "last mile" access, I've assembled a primer of talking points, web links, campaign logos, and miscellanea as a starting point to get educated about this topic.

First off, ... to explain the crux of the concern from my vantage point:

Consumers have little or no choice when choosing access providers carrying IP traffic to the home - usually only the incumbent rights-holding phone and cable company. (Some of) these de facto monopolies are, or aim to, unilaterally decide which traffic is prioritized on their network for delivery to you.

The Telcos decisions could be based on technical issues (i.e. hyperbolic concerns over peer to peer sharing), or other insidious reasons including censoring of controversial content, and directing traffic towards paid advertisers and payola-paying business partners rather than immediate delivery of the customer's desired content.

Consumers need marketplace choice, some degree of Telco company policy transparency, and the ability to access the essential public resource of the Internet without hinderance.

Chime in with a comment if there is a great resource to add to the mix, or with your way of explaining this complicated issue in plain-ish English.

In this edition of the "Catching up with Krug" report, we get the quick recap on KK's participation at ICE 08 in Toronto, Ontario (note to Americans, Toronto is still not the capitol of Canada).

{Pardon the digression} from American Bacon:

[the Mountie explains that Honey has been taken to the capital]
Boomer: The capital Toronto.
RCMP Officer at Headquarters: No, the capital of Canada is Ottawa.
Boomer: Yeah, right. Do we look that stupid? Ottawa!
Roy Boy: Nice try, Dudley.

Whist there, Kris spoke on a panel - moderated by Eli Singer from Segal Communications - with Amber Macarthur, and Mark Relph, about leveraging the power of social networks. Here's a live blog from the session "Community Watch: Leveraging the Power of Networks" for your interest.