It did not attract much attention, but last week the CRTC ruled that it is extending its Internet Traffic Management Practices framework to wireless data services. The ITMP framework address some net neutrality concerns. The CRTC had previously indicated that it expected wireless companies to comply with the framework, but the decision (which is effective immediately) provides a stronger legal foundation on the issue.
CRTC Extends Net Neutrality Rules to Wireless Data Services
6 Comments
Recent Posts
How the Liberal and Conservative Parties Have Quietly Colluded to Undermine the Privacy Rights of Canadians 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 248: Mark Surman on Why Canada’s AI Strategy Should Prioritize Public AI Models 
We Need More Canada in the Training Data: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on AI and the Creative Sector 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 247: My Senate Appearance on the Bill That Could Lead to Canada-Wide Blocking of X, Reddit and ChatGPT 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 246: Mohamed Zohiri on the Rise and Emerging Regulation of Stablecoins
Does this mean that wireless providers cannot now disallow VOIP (e.g. skype) on their networks?
dunno
Seems to me that the likes of Bell’s crippled firmwares on their “not-so-smart” phones that prevent competing apps can now get them in some heat.
Wasn’t aware of “Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657”.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-657.htm
Jim R. It appears they need CRTC approval before blocking VOIP, and the CRTC will want to know why VOIP needs to be blocked to ensure the integrity of the network.
sure you can use VOIP…
I’m sure you’ll be able to legally use VOIP on your cell phone. Just so long as it doesn’t involve circumventing any TPMs…
curgoth,
The terms of service of several wireless providers explicitly disallow VOIP – hence, my question, as it would appear that there’s now a conflict between those TOSs and the ITMP framework.
Jim, Many ISP prohibit hosting “servers” or sharing your Internet connection as well. By the same token, that would appear to conflict with the ITMP framework.