Post Tagged with: "crtc"

CRTC Network Management Hearing, Day Seven: Bell

Day seven of the CRTC's network management hearing featured just one company: Bell. As the prime target for much of the criticism associated with traffic management, Bell executives faced questions for nearly three hours, far longer than anyone else.

Key points included new details on Bell's traffic and traffic management practices, claims that the company cannot separate retail and wholesale Internet traffic, and the company's support for a "reasonableness" standard, rather than the "least intrusive" approach advocated by several groups.

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


Read more ›

July 14, 2009 14 comments News

CRTC Network Management Hearing, Day Six: Union des Consommateurs, Rogers, Videotron, Shaw

Day six of the CRTC's network management hearings opened with a final consumer group (Union des Consommateurs) and closed with three of Canada's biggest ISPs – Rogers, Videotron, and Shaw.  Bell was scheduled to appear today but has been pushed back until Tuesday.

The big storyline of the day was the disclosure by Rogers and Shaw of previously undisclosed information.  Rogers revealed its traffic management practices (throttling P2P upload speeds) and shockingly admitted that all its tiers receive the same upload treatment, regardless of the price paid by the consumer.  This is true even though its promotional material tell customers that higher tiered service offer faster upload speeds. Shaw disclosed that it engages in similar practices and provided insight into its throttling practices, noting that it guarantees 80 kilobits per second for throttled P2P sessions and that it reserves 30 percent of its bandwidth for P2P use (it said that 10 percent of its users account for the P2P traffic).
Videotron, the third cable ISP in the mix, complicated the analysis further by noting that it does not traffic shape.  Rather, it uses economic measures, the new euphamism for bit caps, to discourage overuse of P2P.  The ISP indicated that it is very happy with the effectiveness of its approach.

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

Read more ›

July 14, 2009 15 comments News

Questions For Bell

CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein closed today's session of the network management hearing by noting that the "Bell interrogation" will begin tomorrow morning. With Bell the final party to appear, the previous six days have raised many questions in need of answers.  I've posted some below.  Readers should feel free to add here or post to Twitter (#q4bell).

Traffic management

  • Your disclosure statement indicates that you shape from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am?  Why not more specifically during periods of congestion?
  • Your online disclosure does not specify the reduction in speeds due to shaping.  What are they?
  • Rogers claims that P2P causes congestion at all times.  Do you have a different experience?
  • Many major carriers from both DSL and cable do not traffic shape at all.  Why the difference?
  • Do you traffic shape upload and download or just upload?
  • What are the minimum speeds for upload (Shaw's are 80 kilobits/sec)?
  • What percentage of bandwidth is reserved for P2P traffic (Shaw is 30%)?
  • What percentage of your users are active P2P users?
  • Is the shaping the same for all customers regardless of the tiered service?
  • Do you shape wireless data services?
  • Have you tried economic approaches (ie. Videotron's caps) to address congestion?
  • What would be your costs to adopt the Comcast approach?
  • Have you considered the Juniper technology of customer controlled prioritization?
  • How do you address the privacy concerns associated with DPI?
  • Do you have any information on the throttling experience raised by the CFTPA presentation?

Read more ›

July 13, 2009 32 comments News

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.

Read more ›

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]

Read more ›

July 10, 2009 3 comments News