The CRTC has approved Bell's request for wholesale usage based billing. The UBB proposal attracted significant public opposition and raises significant competition concerns.
Post Tagged with: "crtc"
U.S. Net Neutrality Bill Big Leap Over Canadian Law
Last week, Congressional Representatives Ed Markey and Anna Eshoo introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. Public Knowledge provides a great rundown of the net neutrality bill. While some have suggested that the bill merely allows the U.S. to catch up to Canada, a closer look reveals that the bill would move the U.S. far beyond Canada in dealing with net neutrality issues as it directly addresses many of the issues raised during the CRTC network management hearing. In particular:
1. Traffic management guidelines. It establishes a reasonable network management traffic management guidelines similar to those proposed by the OIC and CIPPIC. The bill states:
a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available.
This is not current Canadian law, though the CRTC has been asked to adopt something very similar.
2. Transparency. The bill requires full public disclosure of traffic management practices, something opposed by some ISPs at the traffic management proceeding. The bill states:
each Internet access service provider shall provide to consumers and make publicly available detailed information about such services, including information about the speed, nature, and limitations of such services. Each Internet access service provider must publicly disclose, at a minimum, network management practices that affect communications between a user and a content, application, or service provider in the ordinary, routine use of such broadband service.
This bill would provide far greater mandated transparency than that found in Canada.
Bell and Rogers Square Off Over Internet Speed Claims
As two of Canada's biggest Internet service providers, Bell Canada and Rogers Communications are fierce rivals that frequently battle for the same customers. That marketplace fight rarely spills into the courtroom, yet my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) notes that last month a Rogers advertising campaign prompted Bell to file a $50 million dollar lawsuit. The result was an end to the campaign and evidence both companies over-promise the speed of their Internet services.
The case began when Rogers launched a direct mail and Internet ad campaign called "Check Your Speed." The campaign warned users the Internet services "you are paying for may not be what you're getting" and encouraged them to test their connection with an independent third party. The campaign unsurprisingly offered Rogers services as an alternative, promising a "reliable speed every time you connect." Just days after the launch, Bell filed suit, arguing in court documents violations of the Trade-Mark Act, Competition Act, along with various torts. The company sought $50 million in general damages, $1 million in punitive damages, and an injunction blocking Rogers from continuing with its campaign.
Two days later, Rogers dropped the third party testing feature. Rather than using a fully independent third party service, Rogers had used a server located in Seattle, Washington to run its tests. The court found that the distance between users in Ontario and the speed test server in Washington might help account for slower speeds. Even more telling was the evidence that placed the spotlight on a Canadian industry practice of advertising the maximum or "up to" speeds for customers, rather than minimum or actual speeds that customers typically obtain. The Rogers campaign was effectively premised on this discrepancy since it encouraged users to check their speeds where they would undoubtedly learn their typical speeds were lower than those promised by their ISP.
Bell and Rogers Square Off Over Internet Speed Claims
Appeared in the Toronto Star on August 10, 2009 as Internet Providers Fight Over High-Speed Claims Appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on August 11, 2009 as Bell and Rogers Square Off Over Internet Speed Claims As two of Canada's biggest Internet service providers, Bell Canada and Rogers Communications are fierce […]
Bell Takes Fee-For-Carriage to the Federal Court of Appeal
The Globe reports that Bell has filed an action in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging the CRTC's recent decision on fee-for-carriage, arguing that the Commission overstepped its jurisdiction.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law 
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
