Neutrality
The Internet and Canadian Healthcare both have something in common. Discussions are happening over whether the tiering of the system will improve the services they provide. Many Canadians are staunchly against the privatization of healthcare and are quite proud of the service that we get. Likewise, many people on the Internet are opposed to the tiering of the Internet, proposed by some American telecoms, and are quite proud of the open nature of the Internet. As you can see, there are some very interesting parallels.
Free Healthcare
Healthcare in Canada was born in the 1980s. It was pioneered by Tommy Douglas
The issue here is between everyone having the right to quality healthcare, regardless of the cost, and the right for those who are willing to pay for higher quality to be able to do so. In recent years, the quality of service has gone down a bit, with waiting times being extended. The proponents of the privatization of healthcare have been saying that the current system is limited in efficiency.
Being a lefty, I’m obviously against any tiering or privatization of the healthcare system. I know, I know, wait times are atrocious and the system has been terribly inefficient recently. The problem I have with privatization is that it won’t necessarily solve the problem.
Think about it: if you have the money you can pay for prioritized access (basically) to doctors and hospitals and care. But if you don’t have the money, you’re still screwed. You still have to wait with the rest of the poor people. Privatization only benefits those with the money. Whatever relief that brings to the system is miniscule, as rich people tend to be those with the least demand on the system as well as being the smallest proportion of our society.
Also, it sets precedent. If you start tiering the healthcare system, that could be the first step into more and more privatization until we completely privatize the system like the States. That is a very dangerous direction to take.
Net Neutrality
In the past few months, some large American telecoms have proposed a tiered Internet system. What this means is that sites and programs would pay for prioritized use of the pipes. So if Google wanted to be faster, or more prioritized, they would pay for it. Meanwhile, you and I trudge along slowly. The rationale behind this is why should the telecoms have to pay for maintenance of those pipes while companies like Google make money without having a share in maintaining those pipes.
This isn’t limited to corporations. The telcos can also prioritize types of traffic, so if the RIAA were to pay a bit, they could shunt all peer-to-peer traffic down to low priority. The telcos can shove Internet telephony and keep it down. With network tiers having already blocked each other’s traffic over a fight, this doesn’t seem too far out there.
At the heart of the debate is the principle known as Network Neutrality: the idea that the network should be neutral with regards to what travels on it. For instance, if you get broadband from AT&T, network neutrality dictates that AT&T should provide you with a free and mostly unfettered Internet experience (there will always be provisions against questionable behavior). It would be wrong, for example, if the company blocked access to DirecTV’s web site, or if they used network monitoring software to block VoIP calls, or worse yet, charged you extra for them. There are considerable fears that the broadband companies will grow envious of new Internet-based services such as VoIP and streaming media, and look to get in on the action. And they will. It’s only a question of how.
Network Neutrality is a fundamental freedom of the Internet. Not only that, we are paying for Internet access already. Not only will we have to continue paying for our access, we won’t get everything equally. Take higher bandwidth services for example. They produce a greater strain on the network. In theory, it doesn’t sound that bad, until you realize that they are trying to control what you do with your connectiont that you are paying them for.
Tying the two together
Both Network Neutrality and Canadian Healthcare both have something in common so far. They are completely neutral. They don’t care who you are or what you’re using their service for. Everyone is completely equal. There is no way you can pay for better service.
The corporations are trying to change that. A lot of people assert that if they have the money, they should be able to purchase a higher quality of service. That’s the basis of capitalism and the free market. If there’s competition, then prices should automatically regulate themselves.
Of course, we should all realize by now that practice never follows theory completely. Healthcare should be affordable for all if there is sufficient competition going around. A look at the States tells us how good that’s doing. I remember reading an article on an average family, just like one of ours, that had to file bankruptcy so they could afford medication and treatment for one of their children.
We forget that corporations have no obligation to the public and the betterment of society. Their only goal is to make as much money as possible and they are accountable ultimately to their shareholders. And we are proposing that we should hand over control of our healthcare and the Internet over to them.
I don’t think it’s a particularly wise choice to be giving corporations such power over the most critical infrastructure of our society.
Tags: Canada, Computers, Free, healthcare, internet, neutrality, Politics