Save the Internet - Demonstration in Vienna by Arbeitskreis Vorratsdaten (CC BY 2.0)

Save the Internet - Demonstration in Vienna by Arbeitskreis Vorratsdaten (CC BY 2.0)


The CRTC’s Differential Pricing Hearing: ISPs Should Not Be Picking the Internet’s Winners and Losers

Net neutrality, the longstanding principle that Internet service providers should treat all content and applications in an equal manner faces its toughest test yet this week as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada’s broadcast and telecommunications regulator, conducts a hearing on whether ISPs may engage in “differential pricing”.

My Globe and Mail column notes that differential pricing refers to instances in which ISPs adopt a non-neutral approach to content by charging one price for consumers to download or access some content, but a different price for other content. The issue – sometimes known as “zero rating” for cases in which ISPs do not levy any data charges for certain content – may sound technical, but it has huge implications for how Canadians access and pay for Internet services.

Much like prior policy battles over net neutrality, the concern over differential pricing involves fears that ISPs will use their gatekeeper position to favour some content over the others. In fact, given the vertical integration that brings together carriage and content at many of Canada’s largest providers, the temptation to privilege their own content may be too much to resist.

How can the CRTC craft a policy that maintains the principles of net neutrality but avoids heavy-handed regulation?  In searching for a policy that encourages ISP innovation that does not rely on leveraging the potential gatekeeper function, the commission should consider a default rule prohibiting differential pricing subject to two exceptions. Read the full column that examines the solutions that are non-starters and the details on a differential pricing policy.


  1. Suzanne Catty says:

    Differential pricing should not be allowed under any circumstances. Your suggestion that time of day is a justifiable reason would unfairly punish women and children who tend to be the day-time users after school / work. Those outside of cities are even further penalized in both significantly higher ISP pricing and higher electricity costs. The ISP’s across the country are colluding on price as a cursory analysis shows and government approvals of mergers has entrenched those practices through lack of competition.
    There is no such thing as ‘neutral differential pricing’.

  2. This design is spectacular! You certainly know how to keep a
    reader amused. Between your wit and your videos,
    I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!)
    Excellent job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how
    you presented it. Too cool!

  3. Any ISP charging these fees should be charged with fraud. I as an end user already pay the ISP for X amount of data at X speed. The company providing me content is doing the same. Using your semi-monopoly to to charge people for some thing they are already fully paying for is fraud.