|
Friday July 08, 2011 |
Two years ago, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission conducted a much-publicized hearing on net neutrality, which
examined whether new rules were needed to govern how Internet providers
managed their networks. While many Internet users remain unaware of the
issue, behind the scenes Internet providers employ a variety of
mechanisms to control the flow of traffic on their networks, with some
restricting or throttling the speeds for some applications.
The Commission unveiled its Internet
traffic management practices in
October 2009, establishing enforceable guidelines touted as the
world’s
first net neutrality regulations. Where a consumer complains, Internet
providers are required to describe
their practices, demonstrate their necessity, and establish that they
discriminate as little as possible. Targeting specific applications or
protocols may warrant investigation and slowing down time-sensitive
traffic likely violates current Canadian law.
While there was a lot to like about the CRTC approach, the immediate
concern
was absence of an enforcement mechanism. Much of the
responsibility for gathering evidence and launching complaints was left
to individual Canadians who typically lack the expertise to do so.
Nearly two years later, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star
version, homepage
version) posts an investigation into the system that
reveals those
concerns were well-founded.
Although the CRTC has not publicly disclosed details on net neutrality
complaints and the resulting investigations, I recently filed an Access
to Information request to learn more about what has been taking place
behind the scenes. A review of hundreds of pages of documents discloses
that virtually all major Canadian ISPs have been the target of
complaints, but there have been few, if any, consequences arising from
the complaints process. In fact, the CRTC has frequently dismissed
complaints as being outside of the scope of the policy, lacking in
evidence, or sided with Internet provider practices.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday July 08, 2011 |
|
View
|
|
|
Friday July 08, 2011 |
Appeared in the Toronto Star on July 8, 2011 as Lots of Complaints, Few
Consequences
Two years ago, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission conducted a much-publicized hearing on net neutrality, which
examined whether new rules were needed to govern how Internet providers
managed their networks. While many Internet users remain unaware of the
issue, behind the scenes Internet providers employ a variety of
mechanisms to control the flow of traffic on their networks, with some
restricting or throttling the speeds for some applications.
Those practices have proven highly contentious, with creator interests,
technology companies, privacy rights organizations, and consumer groups
all expressing fears that they may curtail innovation, invade user
privacy, stifle competition, and create an uneven playing field for
content distribution. Internet providers argue that such measures
are essential to provide their subscribers with a good experience at an
affordable price.
The Commission unveiled its Internet traffic management practices in
October 2009, establishing enforceable guidelines touted as the world’s
first net neutrality regulations.
Where a consumer complains, Internet providers are required to describe
their practices, demonstrate their necessity, and establish that they
discriminate as little as possible. Targeting specific applications or
protocols may warrant investigation and slowing down time-sensitive
traffic likely violates current Canadian law.
While there was a lot to like about the CRTC approach, the immediate
concern was absence of an enforcement mechanism. Much of the
responsibility for gathering evidence and launching complaints was left
to individual Canadians who typically lack the expertise to do so.
Nearly two years later, an investigation into the system reveals those
concerns were well-founded.
Although the CRTC has not publicly disclosed details on net neutrality
complaints and the resulting investigations, I recently filed an Access
to Information request to learn more about what has been taking place
behind the scenes. A review of hundreds of pages of documents discloses
that virtually all major Canadian ISPs have been the target of
complaints, but there have been few, if any, consequences arising from
the complaints process. In fact, the CRTC has frequently dismissed
complaints as being outside of the scope of the policy, lacking in
evidence, or sided with Internet provider practices.
Rogers Communications has been the target of nearly half of all cases
opened in response to net neutrality complaints. In recent months,
there have been multiple complaints arising from bandwidth throttling
of World of Warcraft, a popular multi-player online game. Rogers
initially denied any wrongdoing, only to later acknowledge that there
was a problem. The company promised to address the issue, though no
consequences arose and it was not forced to publicly disclose the issue.
In November 2010, Bell Canada was hit with a complaint over throttling
download speeds from Hotfile.com, an online locker service that lets
users store and access music and other files from any computer. Bell
admitted its deep-packet inspection technology was mistakenly treating
downloads from the site as peer-to-peer activity and slowing connection
speeds. Bell promised a fix, but only after asserting that it was
compliant with the guidelines.
There has been only one complaint that led to a clear change in
provider policy. In January 2010, ExaTEL, an Ontario-based Internet
phone company, filed a complaint against Barrett Xplore, a satellite
Internet provider. ExaTEL alleged that Barrett Xplore was degrading
Internet telephony traffic, creating an unfair advantage for its own
phone service.
The CRTC ruled that there was no undue preference, but that the
throttling of time sensitive traffic violated its guidelines. Faced
with the prospect of changing its practices or seeking special approval
from the CRTC, Barrett Xplore changed its throttling approach to ensure
that Internet telephony was unaffected.
Barrett Xplore was also the source of the longest running complaint as
the company took months to respond to CRTC requests to improve its
disclosure practices. Only after the Commission threatened to launch a
public proceeding into the matter did Barrett Xplore respond.
On occasion, the CRTC is itself the source of the problem.
In March 2010, a complaint was filed against Cogeco, a cable provider
with a traffic shaping policy that continuously limited bandwidth for
peer-to-peer applications on a 24/7 basis. Given the CRTC’s requirement
that traffic management limits be linked to actual network congestion,
the Cogeco policy raised red flags. Even so, the CRTC demanded
that the complainant provide more evidence before it would investigate.
In a December 2009 complaint against Bell over throttling access to the
MediaMonkey.com website, the CRTC dismissed the complaint on the
grounds the site did not appear in Bell’s list of affected sites.
Yet even when the CRTC pursues a complaint, there is little actual
investigation. Most activity is limited to exchanging correspondence or
prodding Internet providers to respond. This typically leads to revised
disclosures, rather than real changes.
After more than 30 investigations in nearly two years, it is clear
improvements are needed. At a minimum, the CRTC should be publishing
all public complaints and resolutions so that the issues obtain a
public airing. Moreover, the system needs penalties for violations as
well as pro-active audits to ensure Internet providers are compliant
with their obligations. Without change, the CRTC’s net neutrality rules
offer little protection for Canadian Internet users.
CRTC's response
Our policy was praised for being fair and practical: allowing users to
have as much freedom to explore the Internet while giving the ISP the
flexibility to manage their networks to ensure that their customers
receive an acceptable level of service.
As to the issue of making the complaints and relevant correspondence
public, we are looking at ways to be more transparent while respecting
the privacy rights of the complainants.
Under the current legislation, the Commission has limited tools to
enforce its rules.
New tools, such as AMPs (administrative monetary penalties) allow the
Commission to be more effective in its enforcement activities, as we
have demonstrated in the case of DNCL (the Do Not Call List) and the
significant penalties that were recently imposed.
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, TwitterTagsShareFriday July 08, 2011 |
|
|
Thursday June 23, 2011 |
|
The Dutch Parliament passed
several notable Internet bills yesterday, including Europe's first net
neutrality
legislation, privacy rules on the use of cookies, restrictions on the
use of deep-packet inspection, and protection against Internet
disconnection. Bits of Freedom provides details
on the legislative package.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday June 23, 2011 |
|
|
Friday June 10, 2011 |
|
Teresa Murphy has filed another complaint
against Rogers over its Internet traffic management practices, claiming
its alleged fix of problems with World of Warcraft have not worked.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday June 10, 2011 |
|
|
