Net Neutrality And Creative Freedom (Tim Wu at re:publica 2010) by Anna Lena Schiller (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/7VfazT

Net Neutrality

Shaw Places Spotlight on Net Neutrality Rules With Online Video Service Plans

Two of the leading issues before the CRTC – over-the-top video and usage based billing – have come together as Shaw has announced plans to launch a new online movie service designed to compete with Netflix. Subscribers to the service, which will cost $12 per month, will be able to watch on their TV and computer. Most notably, Shaw says that the service will not count against subscriber data caps. Given the problems users of over-the-top video services have encountered with the caps, the Shaw approach places the spotlight on the CRTC net neutrality guidelines and undue preference rules. [Update: Shaw now says that watching movies via the Internet will count against user caps]

Last week I examined the failure to effectively enforce the guidelines, however, this case raises the question of whether Shaw is violating the rules by offering an over-the-top video service that does not count against a user cap while traffic from competitors such as Netflix does. The obvious complaint will be that Shaw is giving itself an undue preference in violation of Section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act:

July 15, 2011 — 18 comments — News

The Xplornet’s Release: Digging into the Documents

Earlier this week, Xplornet Communications Inc. (formerly Barrett Xplore Inc.) issued the following press release in response to my post on the CRTC’s net neutrality enforcement:

Xplornet Communications Inc., (formerly Barrett Xplore Inc.) is aware that allegations made online by Michael Geist on Friday July 8th, 2011 have been reprinted by various media. The statements made in Mr. Geist’s original article omit material information and draw incorrect conclusions regarding Barrett Xplore Inc.’s actions. Reprinting this blog entry, or Geist’s allegations regarding Barrett Xplore Inc. (or Xplornet Communications Inc), represent the publication of materially misleading statements regarding our company.

To say I was surprised by the release would be an understatement. Xplornet never contacted me to discuss the post or express concern about its content. The original post did not directly target Xplornet, but rather focused on the CRTC enforcement record. It pointed to complaints against several different providers and listed all complaints I obtained as part of an Access to Information request. With respect to Xplornet, I stated the following:

July 14, 2011 — 13 comments — News

CRTC Issues Warning to Rogers: Address Throttling Concern or Face Public Hearing

The CRTC has issued a warning to Rogers in the ongoing dispute over its alleged throttling of World of Warcraft. The Commission says it is not persuaded the issue has been completely resolved and gives the company until July 25th to address ongoing concerns. It says failure to do so […]

July 14, 2011 — 2 comments — News

CRTC UBB Hearing, Day One: It’s About Competition, Not Congestion

The CRTC hearing on wholesale usage based billing opened yesterday with Bell leading off in front of a packed room (coverage from the Globe, National Post, Quebecor, and Wire Report). By the time lunch rolled around, it was clear that claims that usage based billing practices are a response to network congestion is a myth (it was also clear that Bell is happy to peddle fantasies such as claims there is nothing to stop independent ISPs from taking 20% of the Canadian market and that consumers have no problem with UBB). I wrote specifically about UBB and network congestion in this post earlier this year in which I cast doubt on the connection between the two.

Bell opened by focusing specifically on network congestion. Its opening remarks emphasized the existence of network congestion, the contribution to congestion by wholesale ISPs, and that IPTV does not contribute to congestion. It also provided a chart of the Bell Internet network, noting that congestion occurs in the portion of the network that aggregates traffic from both Bell customers and customers from independent ISPs (thereby again confirming that there is no congestion issue in the so-called last mile nor once the traffic hits the backbone network and the public Internet). Bell’s emphasis on network congestion is not surprising since the CRTC approach to network management – both net neutrality (technical Internet traffic management practices) and UBB (economic ITMPs) has been premised on dealing with congestion concerns. If the proposed solutions do not address congestion problems, the rationale behind the regulatory framework falls apart. Given the lack of robust competition in some Canadian markets, this suggests that the regulator should be playing a far more active role in addressing UBB.

Once the questioning began, the claims associated with congestion quickly unravelled.

July 12, 2011 — 55 comments — News

Why Net Neutrality and Usage Based Billing Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

The CRTC hearing on usage based billing opens this morning with two of the big players – Bell and Open Media – both slated to appear. Since the CRTC refused to extend the hearing to retail usage based billing issues, I suspect the outcome will be anti-climatic. There may be some new rules for wholesale UBB (which will only serve to demonstrate how badly the CRTC has bungled this issue), but the broader data cap issues will remain unchanged for now.

The UBB hearing comes immediately on the heels of my report last week on two years of failed enforcement of the net neutrality guidelines, known as Internet Traffic Management practices. My report has received wide media coverage (Montreal Gazette, CBC, Wire Report, GeekTown) as well as responses from both the NDP and Liberal parties. While net neutrality and UBB are ostensibly separate issues, it is important to recognize the clear linkage between them. As the title of this post suggest, they are two sides of the same coin.

The numerous violations of net neutrality (and make no mistake, over one complaint per month when the burden is exclusively on the shoulders of individual Canadians is significant) and the near-universal use of UBB are both a function of the lack of competition within the Canadian market and the inability (or unwillingness) of the CRTC to play a more proactive regulatory function in the absence of robust competition. For the dominant ISPs, they jointly provide the means to erect barriers to competitive services by rendering such services either unusable (throttling speeds) or more costly (data caps).

July 11, 2011 — 12 comments — News