Julianna Yau posts a response she received from a Liberal MP on net neutrality. The response notes the deregulatory approach at the CRTC and states that "this approach does not afford proper recognition to the rights of Canadian internet users, and has resulted in the problems we are beginning to […]
Post Tagged with: "crtc"
Canada’s Wireless Crisis
This week I delivered the opening speech at the annual Spectrum 20/20 conference that focused on the state of Canadian wireless marketplace. As the title of this blog posts suggest, I believe that Canadian wireless is in a state of crisis, with limited competition and high data prices. The talk and slides have been posted to Blip.tv and are embedded below.
Note that I also covered the issue this week in my technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, Vancouver Sun version, homepage version). I begin by noting that last week's announcement that the Apple iPhone will make its long awaited Canadian debut later this year generated considerable excitement. While analysts focused on the bottom line impact for Rogers Wireless, it may be that the most important effects have already been felt in Canada since more than any industry statistics or speeches, the iPhone's slow entry into Canada has crystallized the view that the Canadian wireless market is hopelessly behind the rest of the world with limited competition, higher prices, and less choice.
Canwest on Net Neutrality at the CRTC
Canwest reports on the CAIP vs. Bell fight at the CRTC.
More Support for CAIP
L'Union des Consommateurs, a leading Quebec-based consumer rights group, has filed a submission in support of CAIP in the Bell throttling case. Meanwhile, the CRTC has posted hundreds of comments from individual Canadians who are also siding with CAIP.
CAIP Responds to Bell Throttling Submission
CAIP has submitted its response [update – now online] to the Bell throttling submission and it does not pull any punches:
It is also clear from Bell's Answer that it fundamentally misunderstands (or has consciously misrepresented) several key facts and issues that are of direct relevance to the issues under consideration in this proceeding, including, most significantly, the nature of the local access and transport service that Bell provides to its wholesale customers, the extent to which its DPI "traffic shaping" technology interferes with both the content and privacy of end-user communications, and the tremendous impact that its traffic shaping practices have had – and are continuing to have – on competitors, their end-users customers and providers of new media content that make use of P2P applications to deliver content to their on-line users, listeners and viewers.
CAIP continues to focus on the competitive implications (and rationale behind) Bell's throttling, arguing that:
There is also uncontradicted evidence . . . that strongly suggests that the reasons behind Bell's decision to throttle its competitors' GAS traffic have little to do with Bell's unsubstantiated claims of "network congestion" and more to do with a desire to lessen competition in retail telecommunications markets. There are far too many "coincidences" between the timing of the initiation of Bell's throttling practices and the timing of a number of other events in order to conclude otherwise.
The CAIP submission also includes some interesting new allegations.