There has been considerable discussion in recent weeks regarding the prospect of court orders mandating ISPs or other intermediaries disclose identifying information about anonymous individuals (Google model case, Ottawa city hall blog). Overlook, however, is a recent order obtained by York University requiring Bell and Rogers to disclose subscriber information. […]
Post Tagged with: "rogers"
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 […]
CRTC Net Neutrality Hearing Open Door To Regulatory Action
Regulatory hearings on Internet traffic management practices held in windowless rooms in Gatineau, Quebec in the middle of summer are not likely candidates to attract much attention. Yet, as my weekly technology column notes (Toronto Star version, homepage version) for seven days this month, hundreds of Canadians listened to webcasts of Internet service providers defend their previously secret practices while engaging in a robust debate on net neutrality. The interest in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing may have caught the regulator off-guard (the webcast traffic was, by a wide margin, its most ever for a hearing), but it was the testimony itself that was the greatest source of surprise.
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.