Is Internet access essential?

To keep connected to my Canadian-ness (or is it Canadian-inity?), I try to follow the hot topics in Canadian news. One issue that has received a lot of attention is the CRTC’s decision to approve usage based billing by Canadian ISPs. I won’t get into the details here, but if you’re curious, Michael Geist has a great discussion on what UBB is and why it matters.

Geist runs an excellent blog discussing the technology law issues of the day. Geist’s posts on usage based billing caught my eye because of his recommended next-steps for Parliament. Among other things, Geist suggests the Canadian government should mandate open-network policies, monitor ISPs to detect anti-competitive throttling and open spectrum auctions to international buyers.

Geist’s recommendations seem reasonable. Who wouldn’t benefit from more competition among the ISPs? But maybe that’s because he has already accepted two points: One, that Internet access is essential; and two, that government intervention is the best way to promote Internet access.

I’m more interested in the first assumption: Is Internet access essential?

On the one hand, Internet access seems like a First-World Problem. Even if we shut the Internet off, what’s the big deal? No Internet means little more than no Facebook newsfeeds, no Netflix movies or no celebrity Twitter updates. Internet access isn’t indispensible – it’s just a convenience. If email and Skype are down, we still have communication via cell phones and coffee dates; and if Google and Wikipedia are down, we can still access information through libraries and encyclopedias.

On the other hand, Internet access is about much more than Facebook stalking or lunch-hour Tweets. At the core of it, the Internet makes communication and easy access to information so much easier that it revolutionizes modern life. It's difficult to get by without instant communication and access to information. As local newspapers shut down, we depend on Internet news media to keep informed. As snail mail becomes unacceptably slow, we need email to communicate. Modern life depends on Internet access, and there’s no going back.

So is Internet access essential? I guess I’ve come to the law student’s response: It depends. That could be a perfectly acceptable answer if relying on rhetoric was sufficient. But I've been pretty sloppy in my reasoning because I haven't broken down the question sufficiently.

Before jumping into answering Is Internet access essential, two terms need to be clarified: First, what does "Internet access" mean? Second, what does "essential" mean? Because these terms aren't very scientific, the definitions require value judgments.

Defining Internet access can be tricky. What sorts of speeds matter - 56k dial-up modem or high-speed DSL? What level of reliability are we talking about - how much downtime a day, a week or month is acceptable? What type of access is acceptable - is any censorship of Internet content appropriate?

Defining essential is also challenging. Essential for whom - large corporations or Joe Average? And essential for what - a decent quality of life for citizens (and if so, how do we measure quality of life) or nationwide economic growth (measured using GDP or some other way)?

It may seem overly nit-picky to make the definitions so precise. I mean, isn't it obvious Internet access is essential for everyone (what would we do without lolcats?) But pinning these terms down is important because we can't give a clear answer to a sloppy question. If we want informed public debate on the issue, we need to know what the issue is before we start arguing, especially when billions of tax dollars are at stake.

In addition, being precise with definitions is important because it makes explicit who we're trying to protect. If the government shouldn't intervene unless Internet access is essential, defining the terms decides who is worthy of public attention. If we define Internet access narrowly as the ability for large corporations to use hi-speed DSL lines, then the beneficiaries will be corporations. If we define Internet access broadly as access to at least 56k speeds for the majority of the population, then the beneficiary is the general public.

Bringing this back to Michael Geist's blog: The problem with his recommendations isn't that they don't make sense. The problem is that it's unclear who his recommendations are supposed to help. We should decide who we're trying to help achieve what before deciding how to help. Maybe it's nit-picky, or maybe it's just good practice.

Something is rotten in the works of Gaiman

Time to inaugurate the new year with some writing, so here's a review of Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman, my first read of 2011.

Neverwhere is a fantasy novel about the magical adventures of Richard Mayhew, a young apathetic investment analyst in London, UK. After a boring day at work, Mayhew unwittingly discovers that London is actually split into two worlds: There is London Above, the busy metropolis Mayhew was familiar with; there is also London Below, a dangerous maze of underground sewers and tunnels home to a dark subculture.

Neverwhere was my first introduction to Neil Gaiman, a best-selling fantasy author most famous for The Sandman comic book series. I wasn't too impressed with Neverwhere: It read like an amateur foray into novel-writing rather than the product of a fantasy-genre specialist.

In terms of writing style, Neverwhere fails to make the reader suspend disbelief. Every fiction book asks us to imagine the world as the author writes it. However, the more farfetched the plot, the harder the author has to work to keep the reader engaged. Which leads to my problem with Gaiman: he's a creative author, but not a very convincing one. Just as you immerse yourself in his alternate universe, you read something so ridiculous it draws you back to reality. It's like watching Lord of the Rings and seeing the lighting director drinking a Red Bull in one of the scenes.

One example was the dialogue. A few conversations into the book, you realize that every character sounds the same. Gaiman just cannot distinguish between how a powerful female warrior or a precocious young teenager or a wise old monk might speak. It's hard to suspend disbelief when you notice the ventriloquist, not the puppets.

Another issue was the logic. Too often you find yourself reading along and thinking "wait, that makes no sense. Why did X happen? Why didn't Y try Z instead?". Of course, by definition, a fantasy novel includes make-believe. But there's a difference between lacking reality and lacking logic: One makes for a good fantasy read, the other distracts and annoys the reader.

Neverwhere started off promising. The idea of a city being split into two parts (ego and id, anyone?) lends itself to interesting questions: What types of people populate London Above versus London Below? How do the two worlds interact? Do the residents of London Above or London Below have a clearer picture of reality? Instead, Neverwhere relies on plot cliches: it's a book about the Unwitting Hero who has a Very Important Quest to complete with the help of Magical Objects so that he may Save The World. Overall, Neverwhere is not great, not good but acceptable for a quick skim.