Post Tagged with: "crtc"

Opposition MPs Call on CRTC To Name DNCL Violators

Liberal and NDP MPs are calling on the CRTC to name names by disclosing the identities of the companies fined under the do-not-call list. The CRTC refuses to name the names if the companies pay the applicable fine.

July 13, 2009 — 4 comments — News

CRTC Network Management Hearing, Day Five: Telus, Cogeco, Barrett Xplore

Day five of the CRTC's network management hearings featured at trio of ISPs, each offering a different perspective on network management issues: Telus (DSL), Cogeco (cable), and Barrett Xplore (satellite). While the three presentations provided a valuable reminder about the differences in network architecture, each had its own important moment.

The key Telus moment came during questioning from Commissioner Len Katz about the impact of the managed IP network (ie. Telus IPTv) on the public Internet. Katz expected to hear that there was no impact, yet Telus admitted that there was an effect. In other words, this is one big pipe and the managed traffic can have an impact on the IP traffic. This is a crucial admission since it highlights how Internet-based activities compete on the same pipe as managed IP ones. In other words, a video on the public Internet effectively competes with a video offered on a video-on-demand service and throttling of the Internet-based video necessarily raises competition concerns.

The Cogeco presentation served to emphasize that without rules, carriers will be free to throttle or limit bandwidth, regardless of any concerns about congestion. This came through when Cogeco was twice asked why it continually traffic shapes on a 24 hour, 7 day per week basis, rather than when there is actual congestion. The response was essentially that it is their network and they are entitled to do as they see fit (assuming that the throttling is legal). The Commissioners should take note that the Cogeco policy and response demonstrates that this is not – as von Finckenstein suggested earlier in the week – a hearing about dealing with network congestion since policies like that employed by Cogeco bear no direct relationship to network congestion.

The Barrett Xplore presentation was highlighted by an attempt to play the P2P blame game. The company began by explaining how it needed to manage traffic to deal with bandwidth hogging applications like BitTorrent. Yet when asked why its disclosure policy did not reference shaping of P2P traffic, the company admitted that its traffic management policies were not P2P specific. Rather, anyone using too much bandwidth (based on the company's assessment) would find their connection throttled. In other words, Barrett Xplore has a bandwidth problem, not a P2P problem, yet P2P provides a convenient excuse.

Today's summary was compiled by Sean Murtha, a law student at the University of Ottawa. Other coverage available from the National Post liveblog and twitter feeds (CIPPIC, me). [update: National Post and CBC.ca articles]

July 10, 2009 — 3 comments — News

CRTC Network Management Hearings, Day Four: CAIP, CIPPIC for CDM, Execulink, Primus

Day four of the CRTC's network management hearings featured three of the world's leading experts on networks along with a trio of ISP perspectives. The panelists included the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, CIPPIC on behalf of the Campaign for Democratic Media (CDM) (who brought experts Dr. David Reed, Dr. Andrew Odlyzko, and Bill St. Arnaud), Execulink Telecom, and Primus Telecommunications.

An important theme during the day was debate on whether there really is a network congestion crisis. CAIP argued that it is competition, not congestion that is at issue. Odlyzko surprised the Commissioners by noting that traffic growth is actually declining and that a steady rate of capital expenditures should be sufficient to meet demand (this was later confirmed by Execulink). Moreover, St. Arnaud and Reed emphasized the diminishing importance of P2P as a video delivery channel, urging the CRTC not to fight yesterday's war.

The second important development was the clear divide that has emerged on traffic management at the wholesale vs. retail level. The wholesale issue was at the heart of the CAIP vs. Bell case and that case is effectively being re-argued during these hearings. Many ISPs have argued against any form of traffic management of wholesale traffic, noting that it prevents the potential for competition between providers. Moreover, in repeated questions about the impact on carrier networks (such as Bell) it is becoming apparent that the problem may lie with Bell, not with the ISPs. Independent ISPs note that Bell promises certain speeds and bandwidth at the wholesale level, but seemingly has difficulty meeting those promises. Some providers (ie. MTS Allstream) have network architectures that ensure that this is not a problem. The sense is that Bell does not and so resorts to traffic management practices. It is noteworthy that CAIP focused very heavily on the wholesale issue and basically abandoned any pretext of protection against traffic management for consumers.

The retail side of the issue has many ISPs arguing that anything should be permitted with appropriate disclosure. Fighting for some limitations are consumer groups, creator group, Saveournet.ca, and the Open Internet Coalition. They have proposed a test to determine whether the traffic management practice is permissible under Canadian law. The Commission will ultimately have to decide both (1) the wholesale issue, which may involve an acknowledgement that it got the CAIP decision wrong; and (2) the retail question including disclosure practices and tests (if any) to determine appropriate conduct.

Today's summary was again compiled by Yael Wexler, a law student at the University of Ottawa. Other coverage available from the National Post liveblog, CBC.ca and twitter feeds from CIPPIC and me.

July 9, 2009 — 3 comments — News

CRTC Network Management Hearings, Day Three: IFTA & CFTPA, CCD & ARCH, ACTRA, MTS Allstream

Day three of the CRTC's network management hearings brought in the views of several additional stakeholders along with the first large telco of the week. Witnesses included the Independent Film and Television Alliance, the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, Council for Canadians with Disabilities, the ARCH Disability Law Centre ACTRA, and MTS Allstream.

While all the creator and producer groups expressed support for net neutrality, it was their position on BitTorrent that was particularly noteworthy. Perhaps heralding an end to the demonization of file sharing, ACTRA emphasized that it wants to compete with illegal downloading and that the best way to do that is to ensure that its members can use applications like BitTorrent to distribute their content. In other words, copyright alone won't address their concerns (they added the need for copyright reform) as network management practices that create a level playing field are essential. Meanwhile, the independent producers emphasized the economic potential of BitTorrent-based distribution. Moreover, ACTRA argued that it was not the role of ISPs to determine the legality of content on their networks. That position is a far cry from what groups like CRIA would like to see happen.

The other big story of the day was MTS Allstream arguing that dominant carriers should never be permitted throttle wholesale services (ie. they argue that any throttling should only occur at the retail level). This led to repeated discussion about the nature of wholesale services (referred to as GAS or Gateway Access Service) with MTS explaining that wholesale service is not like buying Internet access as a retail customer (it was described as akin to a private virtual network). For that reason, there is no valid claim that congestion concerns are the basis for throttling wholesale services (left unsaid is why a company like Bell would throttle – competition from the very ISPs to whom it supplies wholesale access). The discussion was stunning since it left the distinct impression that the Commission did not fully understand what was at issue in the CAIP throttling case.

There was two other exchanges involving Commissioner Len Katz worthy of note. The first was a question in which he suggested that Bell and Rogers do not have a dominant position in Ontario, something that will be news to the overwhelming majority of broadband subscribers in the province. The second was the recognition that prioritization of content is effectively the same thing as throttling of content since the effect in both instances is to place some content on a fast lane and other content on a slow one.

These issues may arise again tomorrow when CAIP appears. Today's summary was compiled by Yael Wexler, a law student at the University of Ottawa. Other coverage available from the National Post liveblog, CBC.ca, and the cippic twitter feed (or mine for MTS).

July 8, 2009 — 10 comments — News

Did the CRTC Misunderstand the CAIP Throttling Case Against Bell?

Today's CRTC network management hearing featured some stunning discussion on the throttling of wholesale services that undoubtedly left many observers wondering whether the Commission actually understood what it was doing in the CAIP throttling complaint against Bell (CAIP has asked the Commission to reconsider the decision). The discussion started when […]

July 8, 2009 — 14 comments — News